Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Abortion (Amendment) Bill

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Billericay:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of UK Residents showeth that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which proposes to reduce the upper limit of abortion will, if enacted, restrict women's choices, endanger their health and open the door to further attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do Vote against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

REGULATION-MAKING POWERS

'In section 199, subsection (2A) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (exercise of regulation—making powers and Parliamentary control thereover), leave out "section 33A" and insert sections 33A and 33C", and leave out "that section" and insert "those sections" wherever those words occur.'.—[Mr. Waller.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, after 'regulations' insert
'approved by affirmative procedure by both Houses'.
No. 2, in page 1, line 15, after 'regulations' insert
'approved by affirmative procedure by both Houses'.
No. 3, in page 1, line 30, after 'section,' insert
`approved by affirmative procedure by both Houses'.
No. 18, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(2A) In section 199 of the 1972 Act (exercise of regulation-making powers and Parliamentary control)—

(a) In subsection (3) after "33A" there shall be inserted 33C"; and
(b) In subsection (4) for the words "or 33A" there shall be substituted the words ", 33A or 33C".'.

Mr. Waller: As there has been some speculation about the intention of my hon. Friends and I in the House today, I wish to make it clear immediately that my intention—I speak for myself only—is to address myself specifically to this Bill. It has been said that others are interested in other Bills today. I favour the Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and I am certainly sympathetic to the Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) that, whatever happens today, I shall certainly be anxious to ensure that I do everything in my power to promote the safety of children in cars. If his Bill achieves its Report stage and Third Reading today, I shall be happy to work with him and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that it works as effectively as possible in the interests of all car occupants, particularly children.
The new clause relates to the Road Traffic Act 1972 and I shall explain precisely what it seeks to do. There are three provisions. First, when the Secretary of State proposes to make the first regulations for which this Bill makes provision he would be required to lay before each House of Parliament a statement: explaining those proposals. Secondly, after that, a period of three months would have to ensue before the regulations were laid before Parliament. Thirdly, and equally important, the regulations would expire three years after they came into force


unless their continuation in force had been approved by both Houses. Those provisions are similar to those which apply to the original seat belt regulations for drivers and front seat passengers. The two principal requirements are the explanatory statement and the need for regulations to be renewed once we have experienced them over three years.
It is vital to have a statement before regulations are laid before Parliament because essentially the Bill is to be regarded as a shell. The essence of the legislation—I do not think that hon. Members will disagree strongly with this—will be incorporated in the regulations that the Minister will lay before Parliament. I fear that the regulations may have to be more complex than they appear to be at present. It is important that the Minister explains his proposals before he puts them into practice.
It may be said that after regulations are laid before Parliament there is a period before they are passed, whether it be by the affirmative or negative procedure. I think that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) intends to speak about that. The problem is that when the House considers a statutory instrument it can pass it or reject it, but it cannot amend it. Given the complex nature of the regulations, the chances are that the Department may not get them right. In one respect at least, the legislation is defective at present because it does not provide for exemption certificates.
If there had not been an opportunity to amend the Bill, it could have passed into the law in a defective form or would have had to be withdrawn. There is provision to amend the Bill but not a statutory instrument, so an explanatory statement should be made.
If the regulations are laid without the House having an opportunity to examine the issues involved, the chances are that they will be defective. If the House had an opportunity to study a statement there would be a period of three months to make representations to my hon. Friend the Minister so that improvements could be made to the Bill. We all agree that it is important to get regulations and the legislation absolutely right.

Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend has implied on more than one occasion that, at the current stage of thinking and development, this measure may have been defective when it was introduced. Would the procedure that my hon. Friend is outlining be adequate to deal with its possible shortcomings? Is he sufficiently unhappy with the regulations that he feels that what he is suggesting may not be enough to provide safeguards against the shortcomings that have been identified?

Mr. Waller: We are still at an early stage. We have had an opportunity to listen to the views of my hon. Friend the Minister. He has said that he must consider the exact form of the regulations and that he will listen to representations at this stage. There is a long way to go before we can begin to think about whether the regulations are right or wrong. There is no guarantee that when they are laid before the House we will have got them right. There should be a wider debate before the regulations are laid so that everybody can express their opinion.
9.45 am
If this legislation becomes law it will have benefited from the fact that it has been open to amendment. I hope

that we shall pass amendments that will improve the legislation and make it more acceptable. The difficulty is that the legislation is drafted in very general terms and it is difficult to know the exact form that the regulations may take.

Mr. Forth: I must press my hon. Friend about this matter. He has said once or twice that we are in the early stages, which slightly puzzles me. We are in the late stages of the Bill, and if major reservations are being expressed we shall have to address them fully. I am slightly alarmed that my hon. Friend is suggesting that it is all over bar the shouting and that we may not have to look in considerable detail at this measure. Are we at the late or early stages?

Mr. Waller: The Bill will have to be considered in another place if it is passed. We are at a late stage of this legislation, but I must emphasise that the meat of the new rules will be in the form of regulations, and we are not at an early stage of the regulations. I am concerned to ensure that when the regulations are laid we have an opportunity to get them right.
I should like to consider some of the issues that would be included in an explanatory statement and which subsequently would have to be addressed by the regulations. I hope to show that we need a statement to get the regulations right. The first problem is one to which hon. Members favouring and opposing the Bill have referred. It arises when the number of children carried in the rear of a vehicle exceeds the number of seat belts fitted. One thinks of a large family with three or more children when there may he only two rear seat belts fitted to the car. What happens if it is not possible to provide restraining devices for all the children because there are not sufficient mounting points? An explanatory statement would have to address whether it would be more dangerous to put two children in seat belts, thus providing less space for the other children than they would have in other circumstances.
Many people have spoken of the school run and the way in which parents share the duty of taking children to and from school. There may he two adults in the front and three children in the rear of a medium or large motor car. The permutations are endless. If parents are to consider what it is best to do for their children, they must be given guidance on the permutations for placing children in restraining devices. We must not have legislation that does not address these matters.

Mr. Stephen Day: Does my hon. Friend agree that the points that he is making were well covered on Second Reading? It was explained that the Bill does not in any way materially affect the number of children carried in the back of a car. It applies only to the number of seat belts fitted. The moral dilemma about which child should be restrained exists at present; it does not arise because of the existence of the Bill. My hon. Friend took part in the debate on Second Reading, and if he looks at Hansard he will see that the matter was well covered.

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend is over-simplifying the matter. On Second Reading and in Committee my hon. Friend the Minister addressed this problem quite carefully, although we have not voted on it at any stage or considered it in great detail. I do not want to labour the


point, but I mentioned it as an issue that will have to be considered in the regulations and therefore should be considered in a statement before regulations are laid.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the evidence that appeared on Second Reading and in Committee and the evidence that led to the Bill being introduced showed that if a child is unrestrained in the back seat without a seat belt it is in danger? Does he not share the simplicity of my view that if it is dangerous for a child to be in the back of a car without a seat belt, it should not be in the back of the car and other arrangements should be made? It is very difficult to balance convenience with children's lives. Is it not inconsistent for the Bill to claim that children should wear seat belts in the rear of the car, but if there are more children than seat belts some children may be unrestrained?

Mr. Waller: The fitting of child restraints in the rear of cars is not compulsory. It is conceivable that people will have to carry children whom they do not normally carry in the car. I would not want to tell people that they should never carry children in the car whom they do not normally carry simply because there is no restraining device fitted for that child. That would be going too far and many people would regard that as an unreasonable demand.
The problem of the child who is not normally carried in the car is very important and should be addressed in the statement. Would it be necessary to install a seat belt rather than a child restraining device for a child who was too big or too small for a restraining device in the car? People need guidance on that.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster used to be a Transport Minister and referred to the dangers that might exist if children who were too small were placed in a seat belt normally used for larger children or adults. We cannot expect car users to carry with them all the pads, adaptors or other equipment necessary to make a normal seat belt suitable for a child of any size. Those issues must be dealt with in a statement.
Clause 1 refers to
the description of seat belt to be worn by children of any prescribed description.
That is a very wide definition. Clause I gives considerable prescriptive power to Ministers and future Transport Ministers who, unlike my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport who has responsibility for roads and traffic, may not take such a reasonable attitude.
I have spoken to mothers over the past few days and I am aware that there is some difficulty in placing some children in a restraining device. Should there be an exception for short journeys of up to half a mile where the danger involved in causing distress to some children may exceed the safety benefit of putting them in a restraining device?

Mrs. Audrey Wise: While the hon. Gentleman is referring to short journeys, has he given any thought to the problems that might arises with taxis? Unlike me, he had the benefit of being a member of the Standing Committee. I have taken it for granted that the Bill is all right. However, he is shaking my belief in that. Can he guide us about the problem with taxis?

Mr. Waller: In Committee the hon. Members for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and for Stretford

(Mr. Lloyd) referred to the problem of taxis. I will deal with that in a moment because I believe that it is important.
Another issue which must he dealt with in some detail in an explanatory statement is the reasonable excuse provision incorporated in clause I. Many people have given different views about what a reasonable excuse might constitute. It has been suggested that it might be a reasonable excuse for someone stopped by a policeman and told that he or she had a child in the rear of the car who was not belted in to reply that the child had undone the buckle or slipped out of the restraining device. We can all readily visualise that happening. Only last night a mother told me that her child aged one and half can slip her way out of a restraining device in the rear of the car in only a minute and a half. She learnt that trick from her brother aged 4. We should not underestimate the ability of small children to act as little Houdinis and get out of all kinds of positions in which they do not feel comfortable.
If a parent or driver of the car was to say that the child had undone the buckle or slipped out of the restraining device, what is the policeman to do? Should he ask the child, "Is it true what your mum says? Is it correct that you managed to get out of the seat belt?"

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is it not a fact that in nearly all cases the policeman will use his common sense, unlike some hon. Members who have spoken in Committee and this morning.

Mr. Waller: I think that most police officers are men and women of common sense. However, we all know of occasions when police officers have wanted to throw their weight about.
The question of reasonable excuse would put the police officer in a very difficult position. More significantly, it would be very difficult to enforce the legislation. If a driver made an excuse such as that to which I have referred, there would be no way of ascertaining whether it was correct. If a driver was stopped, the excuse to which I have referred would be the obvious thing to say. The driver would say, "Of course he was in the device at the beginning of the journey. Oh dear, he must have slipped out." It is difficult to see how a prosecution could be brought because no one would be able to gainsay that excuse.

Mr. Day: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is addressing this matter as if we were debating Third Reading and not specifically new clause 1.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): As far as the Chair is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is making a valiant attempt to introduce new clause 1.

Mr. Waller: I am anxious to address myself only to points of detail that should be included in an explanatory statement.

Ms. Harman: Would it not be helpful for the Minister to tell us this morning that he will take some initiative to encourage manufacturers to develop rear seats and other devices for small children specifically designed to enable parents to put children into them and take them out easily but which would be very difficult for a child to gel out of? The buckle of some devices is fixed on a child's tummy and the first thing that the child fiddles with is the buckle. Is


that not a design problem which the manufacturers must address? Should not the Minister encourage them to do that? Does he not agree—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause deals with regulation-making powers, not manufacturers' powers.

Mr. Waller: You have taken the words out of my mouth, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's comments. Many people with whom I have discussed this issue have said that they would be more willing to use such devices if they were better designed.

10 am

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to discuss regulations that could apply to manufacturers to ensure that the devices are workable?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not under this clause. There may be an opportunity to do so later, with the amendments which are before the House. This clause relates to regulations.

Mr. Waller: I have made careful note of your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall seek to avoid being drawn into issues that may be relevant to other amendments or to the Third Reading of the Bill. Essentially, I wish to confine my comments to the new clause.
Another "reasonable excuse" to which the statement should address itself is whether it would be reasonable never to restrain a child because of its tantrums. Some people might consider that to be a reasonable excuse, and others might not. Some courts, seeing the child in question and having sympathy for the mother or father, might not expect the parents to restrain the child.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Fair point.

Mr. Waller: I would find it a reasonable excuse. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who, like other Members, might also consider it to be a reasonable excuse. Some magistrates might, but others might not. The only way in which we can start to provide greater safety for children is to allow for such matters in the regulations—but they should not be included unless the House has first had an opportunity to consider them by means of a statement. Once the regulations themselves arrive on the Floor of the House, we shall have no opportunity to amend them if we believe that, on this occasion, the Minister has got them wrong.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) mentioned my support for him. On occasions, and however difficult the situation may be, somebody has to say in this Chamber, "Most of the country wants these seat belts. It all sounds good, and it looks good in the tabloids. But what about the regulations?" What will the public say when they see the regulations and ask, "Who passed this lot?" We shall have to reply that it was pushed through one Friday morning, because the House was a bit conscious of something else.
The hon. Gentleman is drawing to our attention the fact that the regulations must be spot on, because we shall all be held responsible for them. I should like to know, for instance, whether the regulations will apply to ministerial cars. Will rear seat belts be fitted to ministerial cars? Not many Ministers could use them, but they do sit in the back. some of them tell me that they lie down in the back of their cars, late at night. Who could use such seat belts? Could the Minister for Sport slip into one? It is just possible. I should like to know whether rear seat belts will be fitted to ministerial cars and to the other vehicles in the car pool.

Mr. Waller: One of the Sunday newspapers printed a story the other week that the Minister for Sport had four children. The following week, the newspaper had to print a retraction, saying that the Minister for Sport had never been married and had no children at all, and apologising to him for any distress the story caused.
As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, and as is often the case, he has hit the nail absolutely on the head. Often, it is only when laws come into effect that we receive complaints from our constituents and are asked why we did not do something at the time. The country is not at this time aware of what is passing through the House and we have a responsibility to act on behalf of our constituents to ensure that we get this legislation right. The best way of doing that is by giving the House an opportunity of seeing a statement before the regulations come before it.
Even if the courts try to create criteria for what constituted a "reasonable excuse", the point is bound to be reached where courts will have a totally different concept of what is or what is not reasonable. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that it is very unsatisfactory to have laws enforced in haphazard and varied ways, if they can be enforced at all. Indeed, I have suggested that there might be some difficulty in enforcing such laws.
Another "reasonable excuse" which a driver might give, and which the House should consider before the regulations are put before it, is this. The driver might say, "I am only the driver. There is someone in the back of the car who knows the children far better than I do. If that person has undone the seat belt, I can hardly be held responsible."
I come to the points made by the hon. Members for Shettleston and for Stretford in respect of taxis. A taxi driver who claimed that he asked at the beginning of the journey for the children to be restrained but that, by the time his taxi was stopped by the police, they were not, would have a reasonable excuse. I have suggested that it might be worth while incorporating in the Bill a different provision so that the person in charge of the child could be held responsible. In some cases that might be fairer than expecting the driver to be held responsible for what happens. Those are alternative approaches and they should both be considered.

Mr. Forth: Can my hon. Friend tell those of us who did not have an opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee or to follow this matter closely until now whether he has received an indication from the sponsor of the Bill or from the Minister that exemptions will be made for taxi drivers? He has skipped rather lightly over that point. We have made exemptions for taxi drivers in other legislation because of their individual and unique situation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not forget


mini cabs. He may be referring only to black cabs, but mini cabs are an increasing force to be reckoned with in the transporting of fare-paying passengers. Will there be exemptions to deal with those problems?

Mr. Waller: I can best respond to my hon. Friend's comments by quoting what was said by the Minister in Standing Committee on 27 April:
There are many issues still to be resolved when deciding how the law should apply in practice.
However, as far as I can recall, he said nothing about any exemptions that might apply to taxis. He may do so later.

Mr. Forth: I hope that he does.

Mr. Max Madden: I may be able to help the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I have, for example, passed correspondence and representations from the Bradford Taxi Proprietors' Association to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). The association has made extremely sensible representations about the need for exemptions—I hope to make a short contribution later this morning. It is important that the Minister, when he replies, makes clear the fact that the consultations will include taxi interests and that there will be specific exemption for taxis from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Waller: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is important that consultations should go as wide as possible. They must obviously include those representing taxi drivers. The best way of ensuring that we get all of this right is to allow the House, after the consultations have taken place, to consider the proposed regulations. Our debate today shows that many hon. members have their own views. There cannot be detailed consultations with every hon. Member without something being put before the House.
Another issue to which a statement should address itself is that raised by my hon. Friend the Minister in Standing Committee, when he stated:
The Bill requires only that restraints which are fitted should he used, not that all children in the rear of cars be restrained."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C; 27 April 1988, c. 9.]
I believe that that is the answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). My hon. Friend appears to agree that at this stage it would be unreasonable to tell the public that all children must be restrained whether or not suitable restraints exist. The provision does not seem to be limited to ordinary seat belts, and I feel that people could be deterred from fitting restraints if, once fitted, they must always be used. The Bill appears to require a belt to be used even if it is not the law of the land that they be fitted. This is an important point.

Mr. Michael Stern: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, which is of concern to parents with very young children. When my daughter was one year old, I was strongly advised that in no circumstances should the rear seat belts be used. I was advised instead to acquire a specific restraint which became useless after a couple of years. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is necessary for the regulations to address that point?

Mr. Waller: I am sure that my hon. Friend was given wise advice, and that that is exactly the sort of issue that would be considered in regulations.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Waller: I will give way this once, but I do not want to do so too many times as it delays our proceedings.

Ms. Harman: May I refer to the regulations as they affect clause 1(3)(c), concerning the description of the seat belt to be worn and the mariner in which it is to be fixed and used? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), and the point that he himself was making when the hon. Gentleman intervened, could be met if the Minister took the initiative to ensure that design advances, particularly in relation to removable shells which can be put in ordinary adult seat belts—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not arise on the new clause.

Mr. Waller: I should like to read a quotation from Hansard which I think is relevant to what I have been saying:
As things stand—and I cannot conceive that any Government will move from this position—the intention is not to require compulsory wearing where there is not compulsory fitting. I cannot believe that if any Minister of Transport brought forward regulations on any other basis, the House would give its approval to them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 23 January 1980; c. 78.]
Those were the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, then a Transport Minister, during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill. However, as I understand it, this Bill would enable a Minister to say that because a child restraint is fitted, even if it is not a legal requirement, it must be used. We are apparently making provision for something that a Transport Minister in 1980 said that he could not imagine any Government of any persuasion doing.
My hon. Friend the Minister has said that if there is a seat belt available for a child, the child should wear it. Of course, we agree that if a seat belt is available the child should wear it; but is my hon. Friend also saying that if the seat belt is available the child must wear it? That is what I understand from the Bill.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has put his finger on another important point. He has illustrated very elegantly the difference of view that can occur with a change of Minister. He has suggested that a Conservative Minister took a view at one time, while our present Minister—whom we all love and respect very dearly—might take another view. But does my hon. Friend share my view that were our Minister to move on to greater things, as we all hope that he will in due course, his successor may in turn take a different view of this important matter at precisely the time that the regulations are being dealt with?

Mr. Waller: That is one reason why I am always very sceptical about statutory instruments, and the possibility that new statutory instruments may be laid before Parliament which the House has not envisaged in the past. Regrettably there has been a trend away from primary


legislation toward incorporating more and more substantial proposals in secondary legislation. That could be avoided to some extent if a statement were laid before Parliament before the regulations came before it.

Mrs. Wise: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that during this Parliament there has been an increasing and distressing tendency for Bills to be shells? Does he extend his strictures to Government and private Members' Bills alike? Should not the House accept its responsibility for considering the detail of legislation?

Mr. Waller: I do not want to be drawn out of order. I am continually being tempted, and I find it difficult to resist temptation when posed by hon. Ladies such as the one who has just spoken. Nevertheless, I shall resist it.
We have only to look at the words of Ministers to see the difference that can emerge over a very short time. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
If passed, the Bill will require restraints to be used where fitted.
Nothing could be clearer. If the belts are not fitted, they do not have to be used, but once fitted they must be used. My hon. Friend appears to be saying that the Bill will require what his predecessor said that he could not conceive of any Government requiring—wearing when fitting is not compulsory.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind over the difference raised a moment ago between statutory instruments being dealt with in a private Member's Bill such as this, and statutory instruments tabled by the Government? Is he not concerned that, once the private Member's Bill is passed, it will be the Government who produce the statutory instrument? There is always a danger that, whatever the defects of a statutory instrument, Conservative Members will be required by the Whips to go willy-nilly into the Lobbies and vote for any rubbish that the Government lay on the Table.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I see the point—it is most interesting—but the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is speaking to new clause 1, on regulations.

Mr. Waller: I always listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I look forward to what he will probably say very shortly.
In Committee, the Minister said:
It is up to Parliament to decide what to do with the Bill, but it will be up to Government to consider what regulations to bring before Parliament if the Bill passes successfully through both Houses.
That is the distinction between Parliament and Government. We should have a little more input from the House. Perhaps it would be a good idea for an explanatory statement to be laid before the House before any statutory instrument was put forward, so that it could be discussed in advance.
My hon. Friend the Minister also said:
we have a responsibility to provide legislation so that parents know what is right."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 27 April 1988; c. 10–12.]
Many issues relating to our efforts to do our best for children are promoted by organisations and by the Government. Some are in the highway code, but in very

few cases do we consider legislation desirable, especially when it is so difficult to enforce it sensibly. Before considering a statutory instrument, we should consider carefully whether a regulation is necessary or whether it would be better for advice to be given in the highway code, and for persuasion rather than compulsion to be exercised to ensure that children are carried in cars as safely as possible.
I want to come to the second part of the—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman may not have considered this but I think that it is important. He knows my views about the Common Market, harmonisation and all that jazz. I am not keen on, in fact I am very much opposed to, us having to knuckle under to the Germans, French and all the rest of them. However, I have no doubt that the regulations would have to be framed in such a way by the Tory Government, who crawl to the Common Market, as to satisfy the other nations around the table.
I want to know whether he has taken into account, and whether he will ask his hon. Friend the Minister to take into account, whether any discussions have taken place. If the Minister is to come back from the Common Market at any time with some tinpot harmonisation scheme on seat belts for kids, I will want to know from where it is derived. It would be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman drew the Minister's attention to that matter before it goes any further.

Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. Often, we come forward with proposals that are out of step with those of other Community countries.

Mr. Skinner: I want them to be out of step.

Mr. Waller: Some people think that they should be out of step but other people, such as motor manufacturers, would prefer them to be in step. For example, one thinks of the dim-dip regulations, on which we are out of step with many other countries. One thinks also of the proposal for compulsory leg guards on motor cycles. That is different from the safety proposals for motor cycles in other countries. That is a fair point and it would be helpful to see in a statement laid before the House what account my hon. Friend the Minister, or whoever may be the Minister or the Secretary of State for Transport, has taken of the practices of other countries.
I take a rather different line on that. I believe that it is beneficial on the whole if our proposals are in tune with those of other countries. Then, people travelling from one country to another will know that the same laws apply and motor manufacturers who have to produce the vehicles will know that they can produce vehicles according to the construction and use regulations that will be satisfactory in other countries.

Mr. Kevin Barron: While the hon. Gentleman is dealing with other European countries may I ask him whether he has seen the briefing done in relation to compulsory seat belt wearing by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety? It says:
In the majority of European countries, seat belt legislation for adults has preceded child restraint legislation, although many now require belt use in the front seat only.
This is the important point—
This has had the effect of encouraging children to travel in the rear, usually unrestrained.

Mr. Waller: It is interesting how different countries have different laws. It is certainly true that there has been a tendency for small children to be carried in the rear of vehicles in many cases, even though there may not be a restraint. That is something to which there have been many references in previous debates about the issue.

Mr. Cryer: One of the interesting aspects of this is that under the European Communities Act 1972 a Minister can be designated for the purposes of that Act and that enables a Department to use the powers in the Act to supplement and extend the scope of regulations that may be brought under this legislation. In a way, it is a back door method of increasing a Minister's delegated powers without anything being brought before the House. Will the hon. Gentleman give his attention to the fact that he should consider the consequences of the widening of powers through that designation? The designation instrument itself is generally by negative procedure and is hardly ever brought to the attention of hon. Members.

Mr. Waller: There is obviously a great danger with any regulations, which would inevitably be brought before the House late at night without the attention of the media. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) would do his best, with his customary diligence, to ensure that they received adequate attention.
The second major element of new clause 1 is the requirement for the House to have another opportunity of considering the regulations by their coming before it again after three years. After those three years we shall have had an opportunity of seeing how they operate in practice. Before the previous seat belt regulations were renewed the Department of Transport commissioned a statistical survey on the effects of seat belt wearing. It was carried out by two academics, Messrs. Durbin and Harvey. Some interesting conclusions emerged from that report, and it would be useful to have another such report.
In such a report, which could be considered by Parliament, I would like to see more reliable statistics based upon accidents as well as casualties. The statistics relating to casualties should be put in a way that provides more real information. I wonder whether people are aware that if one fractures a finger, it is classified as a serious injury because it is a fracture. The same applies if one is in hospital for a night. Yet, there are many injuries that we would consider more serious, but which happen to be classified as minor. It has been estimated that as many as 60 per cent. of all cyclist casualties—I want to show in a moment how the question of cyclists relates to the issue—are not recorded because the cyclist does not go to hospital or receive medical treatment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): My hon. Friend is right in saying that there is high under-recording of injuries to cyclists. It is not because they do not go to hospital, but because they do not say that they received their injuries in a traffic accident.

Mr. Waller: I wondered how that came to be. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining how the statistics appear to under-record road accidents to cyclists. That makes me even more concerned about the possible effects of the Bill because of the risk compensation theory put forward by a number of academics such as Dr. John

Adams. Dr. Adams suggests that by introducing seat belts we are transferring the risk from the occupants of the car to other road users.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Waller: I see that my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to intervene but I should say that it is my belief that the risk compensation hypothesis applies to the rear seat occupants of cars as well as drivers because drivers take account of the people in the car and the extent to which those people are secure. As I said on Second Reading, if there is a crate of eggs in the rear seat of the car and it is bolted down, one will drive more carefully—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not on Second Reading. He keeps referring to the points that he made on Second Reading, in which I was interested. However, we are no longer at that stage of the Bill. I believe that he was dealing with the second element in his new clause.

Mr. Waller: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Minister who tried to intervene earlier.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The second part of my hon. Friend's new clause would be better informed if he knew that the number of pedestrians killed was the lowest since records began in 1926. That demolishes part of any exaggerated case of homeostasis, which is the fancy way of describing risk compensation.

Mr. Waller: Yes, of course. I am as delighted as my hon. Friend the Minister to know that pedestrian casualties are down. However, I am afraid that this is a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Many other improvements in road safety have been to the benefit of pedestrians. For example, construction and use regulations now require that cars should not have dangerous projections, so that cyclists and pedestrians are less likely to suffer injury. As we now have evidential breath testing rather than the need to take samples of blood or urine, perhaps there is a greater tendency for people who might be drunk to decide not to take the car out, or not to drive it home. Therefore, pedestrians will be more secure, because a very large proportion of pedestrians are hit during the hours of darkness, the drink-driving hours.
10.30 am
We have to be cautious about such statistics. Of course, they should be covered in a report which is brought before Parliament three years after the regulations initially come into effect, but we should be particularly careful about them. We should not necessarily assume that the measure we have brought into effect has produced any improvement.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that a report sponsored by the Department of Transport and quoted in Dr. Adams' book says that, although there was an overall fall in the number of deaths relating to cars—pedestrians, cyclists and the people in cars—on analysis, the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed increased above that which would have been anticipated in relation to car accidents, while the number of deaths in accidents involving heavy duty vehicles where belts are not required decreased. The statistics show that one would expect a decrease. but on analysis there was no


decrease in relation to belted-up people. Perhaps the Minister would like to clarify that, as the study was carried out by Durbin and Harvey and sponsored by the Department of Transport.

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One has to draw a distinction between the pedestrians and cyclists hit by private cars to which the seat belt legislation applies and those hit by vehicles to which it does not apply. If one compares the figures for the two categories, there is a notable distinction, so we have a control group. My hon. Friend's suggestion about reduced injuries to pedestrians is very welcome, but should not necessarily be taken as an indication that the benefits are due to seat belt wearing. In fact the opposite could apply.
If there is another report along the lines of the one by Durbin and Harvey, The Lancet may make the same kind of comment that it made about the previous report, when it stated:
There will be regret that the evidence on death is not more one-sided; and disappointment that the measure has fallen short of its promise.
I do not want the new measure to fall short of its promise. One way of ensuring that it does measure up to its promise if it becomes law is to ensure that a proper report is brought before Parliament, and that at every stage Parliament has the opportunity of considering the statistics.
I ask my hon. Friend whether it would be possible to provide the House with better statistics than we have been able to rely on until now. One problem is that we have no figures about non-injury accidents. Therefore, we cannot properly test the hypothesis of Dr. John Adams that, if one requires the occupants of cars to be belted in, there are more accidents, and, although the occupants of the car will be better protected, perhaps the risk will be transferred to other people who are less well protected than those in the car.

Mrs. Gorman: Material is emerging to show that although the number of fatalities among car drivers is dropping, and although the number of children who go through the widscreen may be reduced by the legislation, the nature of accidents is different and many people survive only to be paralysed for the rest of their lives.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to remind the hon. Lady that we are dealing with regulation-making powers and not with accidents. Later in the debate the hon. Lady may have the opportunity to develop her point.

Mr. Waller: I entirely agree with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That point could be made better in relation to other amendments, or perhaps on Third Reading.
However, if a report comes before the House, I do not want to have to read statements such as appear on page 51 of the report by Durbin and Harvey:
There remains strong evidence of a substantial increase in the number of cyclists killed in accidents with cars.
That situation is undesirable, and perhaps can be avoided if the House has the opportunity to consider the regulations and reports from the Department of Transport before the regulations are made, and at a subsequent stage before they are renewed. Essentially, that is what the new clause is about and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Madden: I shall speak only briefly. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on presenting a very important Bill which will save many young people from death or serious injury.
I declare an interest as a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union which organises and represents the interests of taxi drivers in many parts of the country. I wish to speak on that specific point. As I said earlier, I have passed correspondence from the Bradford Taxi Proprietors' Association to the hon. Member for Cheadle and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). I am aware that the Minister has seen that correspondence and is concerned to do what he can to reassure taxi drivers, taxi proprietors and taxi interests.
The position was clearly illustrated by the Minister in Standing Committee. He said:
Child injury in cars is one form of human adversity from which we do not want lawyers to profit, and that is why it is important that the regulations are well discussed, laid in draft and involve as many people as possible, including family organisations … We want to be sure that all practical possibilities are covered. We may say in some cases, 'The good is necessary; the best is impossible.' If three adults and two children were packed into the back of a car, in practice, none would be able to wear seat belts; there would be two seat belts that could not be used. I am not saying that under the regulations that would be one of the exemptions, but we must consider such cases.
If there are three small children aged, say, eight, in the rear of a car that has two seat belts, the regulations are likely to say that two children must be belted up while the third will be unrestrained. It is not pleasant to look at three children, play the balloon game and decide which is to be unprotected, but that need not detain us this morning.
We shall try to produce regulations that make exemptions. I am getting advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and others. But the exemptions must be the necessary exemptions. I emphasise time and again that most children travel, most of the time, in their own family car with their own parents, and there is likely to be no trouble.
The Minister went on to say:
A more tricky question is what happens if so many people are being carried in the back of a car that they cannot wear the belts.
The debate has illustrated the difficulties of trying to write into primary legislation some of the exemptions known to be necessary. But, as well as emphasising the sensible way in which the Bill has dealt with the issues the debate has shown that the regulations will need to make the wearing of child restraints practical, so that children have that extra, necessary protection."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 27 April 1988; c. 14–15.]
I am sure that we all agree with that, because we want the legislation to be acceptable to the vast majority of the public, in this case the parents of children. We also want the legislation and the regulations to be enforceable. Therefore we need regulations to exempt taxis, private hire vehicles and other categories of vehicles that are used for public hire.
The Bradford Taxi Proprietors' Association believes that under the Bill taxi drivers would have to refuse to carry families if all children under 18 were unable to wear seat belts in the rear of taxis or other public vehicles, thereby losing fares and income. If they did otherwise they would be in breach of the law. The Minister must clearly spell out the position.

Ms. Jo Richardson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties about the regulations might be that working women with children at school might ask neighbours or friends with children at the same school to pick up their children, which would lead to


additional children being in the back of those cars? That often happens when women who are working have children at school. How would the regulations apply to such cases?

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend has pointed, as did the Minister in Committee, to another set of circumstances that show that the existing regulations are defective. The Minister said in Committee that he would consult widely. He needs to be more specific today and to give clear assurances.
Many tributes have been paid to the Minister. He is a reasonable person. We are all impressed by the diligence he has shown, but I wonder what would happen if the Minister were to meet with an unfortunate accident caused, shall we say, by the proverbial No. 11 bus or, even worse, if he were to receive an unwelcome telephone call from No. 10 Downing Street? We have to provide for the time when an unreasonable Minister might not make sensible regulations and sensible exemptions.
The Minister must reply to the points that have been put to him by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and by a number of my hon. Friends. I urge him specifically to exempt from the regulations taxis, private hire vehicles and other public vehicles that come into that category. The public and the trade would welcome such an exemption. It would ensure that the important provisions of the Bill are well received by the vast majority of the public and by those whose responsibility it will be to enforce its provisions.

Mr. Day: While speaking to new clause 1, may I take the opportunity also to speak to my amendment No. 18.
The Bill seeks to implement the negative resolution procedure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, that is quite correct. In that respect, it mirrors the legislation that provides for the wearing of seat belts by children in the front seats of cars. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has tabled amendments that are similar to mine, and I have discussed them with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. My amendment No. 18 deals with the same issues and would achieve the same results as the amendments that stand in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South. When he deals with his amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that he intends to withdraw his amendments to support my amendment No. 18.
I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley was right to suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic should say now what the regulations will contain. That would make nonsense of the consultation procedure that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley believes is so important. If there are to be consultations, they must be meaningful.

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I have said that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot be expected to spell out now everything that will be contained in the regulations, but when he is thinking about the kind of regulations that ought to be laid he ought to make a statement so that the regulations can be considered properly and amendments made before it becomes impossible for amendments to be made.

Mr. Day: I accept the majority of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and the hon.

Member for Bradford, South have made, but my amendment No. 18 covers them. It would provide for the regulations to be discussed by the House. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts the validity of amendment No. 18.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) referred to the fact that he had approached me about the representations made by the Bradford Taxi Proprietors' Association. The National Federation of Taxicab Associations has also been in touch with me and it attended the Committee sittings. I have kept in informed about progress. The National Federation of Taxicab Associations does not oppose the principle of the Bill or its aim. I assured the federation that its point of view would be put before the Committee. It was also put before the Committee by other hon. Members, and the Minister is aware of its views. I hope that the Minister will take those views into account.
A few hon. Members have tried to disprove the validity of the safety factor when seat belts are worn in the rear of motor cars, but most of the statistics are overwhelmingly in favour of their use. The Bill is designed to save the lives of young children. They are unable to make decisions for themselves. I ask those hon. Members to reflect on what they have said. The fact is that 91 per cent. of drivers support the principle of the Bill: that there should be compulsory restraint of children in the rear of motor cars, and 90 per cent. of the public support the principle of compulsory restraint. The view that those hon. Members hold may be honourable, but it is mistaken. It is out of step with the views of most hon. Members and with the majority of public opinion.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you received any notification that a Minister will come to the House to make a statement on a factory closure in my constituency? Yesterday, KP Foods announced that it would close a factory, with the consequent loss of 1,000 jobs. As you will understand, this has left the town dazed and in complete shock.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has had no indication from any Minister that a statement will he made today.

Mr. Cryer: I should be happy if a Minister came to make a statement to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) to ask questions. I understand that you can do nothing about that, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to make a statement when such a serious decision has been made.
I shall deal briefly with the amendments because the slowest marathon runner in the House, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), dwelt extensively on new clause 1, to which my amendments relate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will exercise much stricter judgment when Ministers abuse their powers and bring before the House statutory instruments which have validity only because they were passed by a large Conservative majority.
My three amendments are straightforward. I accept the comment of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) that amendment No. 18 deals with the proposition in the same way and provides that the regulations should be made by affirmative procedure. My amendments set out the position much more clearly. I sometimes wish that those


who draft legislation would aim to keep legislation as readable as possible. It is not satisfactory to the ordinary user of legislation to have to refer to sections in a 1972 Act. My amendments provide for the insertion after "regulations" of
approved by affirmative procedure by both Houses".
It is necessary for the House to adopt the affirmative procedure more extensively. We do not deal effectively with delegated powers. Other legislatures are well ahead of us in scrutinising Ministers' powers. This worthy legislation has the power of criminal sanctions behind it and we do not oppose it, because it will reduce the number of lives lost. Legislation exists because people are not universally of good will and we must set a pattern of conduct. That conduct is enforced by the application of criminal sanctions. We leave it to Ministers and civil servants to produce the words that enforce these standards of conduct. We give that important obligation to the Minister, but we do not have a procedure by which we can scrutinise or change the Minister's measures. My amendments unfortunately provide no opportunity to change the legislation.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair, was set up after major errors were made in 1945 in the wording of a statutory instrument. Before then, there had been several criticisms of the way in which the House was handing over more and more detail to Ministers. In his book, Lord Justice Hewart, who was no Left-wing judge—not that there ever have been any—described the powers that we give Ministers as the "new despotism". I do not accept that all-embracing criticism. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments frequently deals with instruments that are ambiguous, ultra vires—beyond Ministers' powers—and badly drafted, and reports on those matters to the House. It reports also on any other matters that do no go to the merits of the policies behind statutory instruments. The Joint Committee's terms of reference do not allow it to debate those merits. The Joint Committee does a reasonable job, but its position is not well regarded. It has no power to require a debate or to hold up legislation.
The negative procedure on statutory instruments may remain a mystery to most hon. Members. A consultative document may be issued and people told that a statutory instrument will be produced. They do not have a clue what that means. They certainly do not know that, when an instrument is laid before the House for 40 days and there is a prayer against it, there is only a chance that the instrument will be debated.
Back Benchers know that if we table a prayer, the chances of the Government giving time for it are slim. A prayer is debated only if Front Benchers add their names to it to put a bit of pressure on the Government and to ask them—it is not a statutory requirement—to provide time to debate it. That is unsatisfactory, especially for an instrument of this calibre, which imposes criminal sanctions and exempts people from fitting seat belts. Under the regulations, certain vehicles or classes can be exempted.
I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and support the representations of the Bradford Taxi Proprietors'

Association to exempt hackney carriages. The exemptions will be made under regulations. Section 33C(3)(c) prescribes
the description of seat belt to be worn by children…and the manner in which such a belt is to be fixed and used.
The detailed application will be made by regulation. A system that allows these matters to be dealt with by negative procedure is a poor system.
The regulations will be complicated. They will be widely applicable to every vehicle that is prescribed. Every child within a certain prescribed age will be required to be restrained by a seat belt of the description given in the statutory instrument. The statutory instrument will be widely read and widely used by the motoring organisations, daily press and so on. If we allow it to proceed under a negative resolution, hon. Members may try to lay a prayer because there are loopholes or inconsistencies. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments may report that the Minister has used more powers than he has been given in the Bill and in the linked legislation, the Road Traffic Act 1972.
The prayer may be debated, but what happens then? A prayer is considered for an hour and a half after 10 o'clock. If a number of votes are taken, there is only just over an hour, with luck, to debate the regulations. The House cannot take statutory instruments in separate parts. We have to decide on the whole thing, whether we like it or not. The temptation is for a Government caught out with an ultra vires provision not to admit that they have made a muck of things. Ministers do not tend to say, "I shall certainly get hold of the draftsman and tell him to be more careful in future." They usually say, "It is a technicality; I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the statutory instrument." The Minister's hon. Friends then go into the Lobby to vote for the instrument because the Whips have imposed a three-line Whip.
11 am
Our method of dealing with genuine questions of procedure and matters of error and poor judgment may have nothing to do with the merits of the instrument. Hon. Members who agree with the policy merits of regulations but feel that they are poorly drafted do not have the opportunity to amend them. The Procedure Committee should consider carefully improving our procedures for delegated power because there is now such a volume of legislation in the hands of Ministers—and therefore civil servants—that the House is losing its ability to scrutinise matters that ought to be very much within its power.

Mr. Waller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is particularly important that there should be scrutiny in this case, given that it is literally a matter of life or death?

Mr. Cryer: I agree that it is important in this case and my amendments would have that effect. However, such scrutiny is also important in many other cases. I have repeatedly argued in Standing Committees that the affirmative procedure should be used more widely and that the negative procedure should be used only for genuinely minor statutory instruments such as those bringing into operation an Act that the House has already passed. Most hon. Members are not in my fortunate position. I have to examine every statutory instrument produced by every Minister that goes before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. They are legion. On average, we deal with 2,000 of them a year. Some of them simply bring


into operation an Act of Parliament, but even they are often 10 and 15 pages long. They are minor works of complicated legislative art. I urge the House—

Mrs. Wise: I apologise if I have missed something. Has my hon. Friend dealt properly with the fact that we seem to have no control over ultra vires provisions that are brought before the House?

Mr. Cryer: Such matters are better dealt with by the affirmative procedure. That is why my amendments urge the adoption of the affirmative procedure, whereby a statutory instrument is not approved until it has at least 1½ hours' debate on an affirmative resolution on the Floor of the House. Even so, I agree with my hon. Friend that that is still very unsatisfactory. I am advocating the best of a very poor choice of options.
Let us suppose that a Minister brings before the House on the affirmative procedure a provision that is ultra vires. If he will not sink his pride and accept the view of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, what happens then? Incidentally, we do not pull our opinions like a rabbit out of a hat. Mr. Speaker's counsel is our legal adviser. When we recommend that provisions be regarded as ultra vires, we do so only after serious consideration, and generally on his recommendation. If the Minister does not sink his pride but says, "It is a technicality" and the instrument is passed, any challenge must then go to the courts. That is a very expensive procedure. Most ordinary people cannot possibly go to law. Like the Ritz hotel, it is open to everyone who can afford to pay, and most people cannot. As regulations under the Bill will affect millions of people—all those who carry children in the back of their cars—we should make absolutely sure that we get them right. That is why I argue that the affirmative procedure should be used.
Even if the affirmative procedure is used there are still faults to be found. The first is the lack of time on the Floor of the House, although we have the full 1½hours which we do not for the negative procedure. That debate cannot be interrupted, so if we are given the affirmative procedure we should be humbly grateful for the extra 20 minutes or so of debate on instruments that affect millions.
Sometimes, there is not enough time on the Floor of the House, so statutory instruments are dealt with by merits committees. Some hon. Members may not yet have served on them. I suggest that they contact their Whips who will be only too happy to appoint them to such committees. It has to be said that the merits committees are not an overwhelming success. People frequently ask me about them because they are called Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. That simply means that they have the power to pass a resolution affirming a statutory instrument. The provisions are dealt with on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday morning in one of the Committee Rooms. The Government organise a quorum, and the Labour Opposition generally turn up. I cannot recall that the Liberals, or the SLD or the SDP—or whatever they are called these days attend zealously.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I have been to four.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is becoming a veteran in these matters.
The committees' sittings are often over in 10 or 15 minutes. That procedure, with all its shortcomings, is still preferable to the negative procedure because it gives hon.

Members an opportunity to oppose a faulty statutory instrument. They have merely to go to their Whips and ask to serve on the committee. One of the virtues of the merits committees is that any hon. Member can speak but not vote. I hope that over the coming weeks many hon. Members will be attending the committees and practising their speeches so that they are prepared when regulations under the Bill come before the House. It is a useful device. Although this place has its shortcomings, one of its great virtues is that it consists of a lot of loopholes strung together. If one wants strongly enough to raise a subject one can always find a loophole. The merits committees provide such an opportunity. I urge my hon. Friends to make use of them when the need arises.
I do not want to speak for too long because of the amount of time taken by the hon. Member for Keighley. However, I must deal with the question of EEC harmonisation, to which I referred in an intervention. It is important, because harmonisation is growing through delegated powers. There has been a change in legislative functions by virtue of the fact that under the European Communities Act 1972 Ministers are designated for the purposes of the Act as Ministers under the Act. That gives them more powers to produce wider delegated legislation. Therefore, I would argue that that legislation should be brought to the attention of the House, and hence of the public, through the affirmative procedure. We would then know about any move by the Common Market to harmonise standards for seal: belts. The hon. Member for Keighley said that he favoured such a standard. However, we may find that for our manufacturers and for our purposes there are certain differences that we want to retain. We should be told whether that is the case. Thai is why the affirmative procedure is the important procedure. We would be more likely to find out about such moves.
I could ask all those hon. Members who take the daily statutory instrument list to raise their hands. My guess is that there would not be many takers. However, only those who take the daily statutory instrument list know about the instruments that are going through the negative procedure—or the affirmative procedure, for that matter, but the negative procedure is the most arcane—and they are the only ones who would know whether the Minister was attempting to extend his delegated power under the European Communities Act 1972, which would have wide repercussions because of harmonisation pressures from the Common Market.
Therefore, the affirmative procedure seems perferable. As the instrument is included in the Orders of the Day we know that the instrument is being dealt with. Orders of the Day are taken by all hon. Members, and as there are notices about the instruments that are dealt with in Committee, hon. Members are much better notified with that procedure. Therefore, the arguments for the affirmative procedure seem overwhelmingly superior.

Mr. James Cran: Yes, we understand that now.

Mr. Cryer: Well, the hon. Gentleman says that he now understands. It is true that I have spent between 10 and 15 minutes explaining it, but I do not often get the opportunity of talking about statutory instruments and I get frustrated at not being able to talk about them—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely on the point of his amendments, but the House is extremely well informed by this time. I am sure that he does not want to become over-repetitive.

Mr. Cryer: I do not want to go over ground that I have gone over before but I do not want any doubts to arise. As I have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to be brief because of the enormous amount of time that was taken earlier. I know that many more hon. Members wish to speak about the Bill and about the Bill that follows it on the Order Paper, so I am willing to withdraw my three amendments following an assurance from the promoter of the Bill that the arcane amendment that he has tabled meets my point and that the affirmative procedure will be used.

Mrs. Wise: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I shall deal with this point first.
The hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) raised an eyebrow at the fact that I have taken between 10 and 15 minutes to elaborate my point. However, the fact is that until I tabled my amendments, the regulations, of such wide coverage and importance, were to go through on the negative procedure. Everybody, including the hon. Gentleman, is now convinced that the affirmative procedure is the best procedure. I convinced him in 10 to 15 minutes. Why was the Department of Transport not convinced earlier that that procedure would be better when it advised the promoter? Why did the civil servants not bring forward the affirmative procedure so that we would not need this debate? Today the scrutiny of this House has improved the Bill.
If I have to spray it on the eyeballs again and again so that the Minister and the civil servants in the Box will take back the message that the affirmative procedure should be used every possible time, I shall. When we receive evidence from civil servants in Committee and ask them which procedure they would prefer, they always say the negative procedure because it is more convenient for them. There is less likelihood of a debate so they do not have to provide ministerial briefs. The arguments are not brought out into the open and are less open to scrutiny, as is the Minister. By and large, Ministers do not like to be under too much scrutiny.
My remarks may have been a little tedious, but I am sure that they were absolutely fascinating to my hon. Friends. However, although I regret it, the fact is that we must go through this process to improve the procedures of our House.

Mrs. Wise: I am worried by my hon. Friend's agreement to withdraw his amendments. I may be entirely wrong so I am asking for clarification. My hon. Friend's amendments have the great advantage that I can understand them. They state clearly:
'by affirmative procedure by both Houses'".
One need only look at them to understand exactly what my hon. Friend means. I find amendment No. 18, which is to be used instead, more obscure. I should like to know whether my hon. Friend is absolutely certain about accepting amendment No. 18 and that he is not relying on assurances from across the Floor. Unless he is certain in his own mind that his amendments are properly dealt with by amendment No. 18, he should ask the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) to withdraw amendment No. 18 in favour of his amendments.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I have received assurances in good faith and one must accept them. I have no doubt that the Minister, who will probably be called next, will give me a further categorical cast-iron guarantee that amendment No. 18 meets the points without putting them into the clear language that I have used.
I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) earlier that we have got into a mess with drafting. There is no question about it. Our legislation is utterly incomprehensible to the average citizen. It should not be incomprehensible, because it affects the average citizen. Legislation such as this should certainly not be incomprehensible. When the Minister produces regulations under the legislation, it is not sufficient for the average citizen with his car, rear seat belts for children and children in the prescribed age range simply to look at the instrument. He will almost certainly have to look at the Road Traffic Act 1972. However, where will he get a copy of that Act? Her Majesty's Stationery Office is in London, although there are a few branch offices, one of which is in Leeds. However, they are sub-offices and are not run by the Government. They do not carry a wide range of legislation, so the Act will have to be ordered. In other words, it is awkward for the ordinary citizen.
Although I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, I do not want to insist on amendments which may produce consequences that have not been entirely foreseen. The Minister might say that he accepts my first amendment, which sets out clearly that the affirmative procedure in both Houses must be used. It states:
after 'regulations' insert 'approved by affirmative procedure by both Houses'.
The Minister will give his views. Amendment No. 18 could be accepted and the Bill altered to make the position a little clearer to the average citizen. I advise the Minister that people in Bradford, South do not talk all day about affirmative resolutions of both Houses. However, they may have a clearer understanding, so I accept the Minister's point of view.
We have had a useful discussion and I am absolutely delighted that, following my suggestion, the promoter of the Bill has accepted my point and purpose without any hesitation as, I understand, the Minister does also. That is a useful demonstration of the way in which a Back Bencher can improve legislation by scrutiny. I hope that my points are taken on board and I certainly accept the promoter's amendment and the spirit behind it.

Mrs. Mahon: Further to the point of order that I raised earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the factory closure in my constituency, could you give me some guidance about how a new hon. Member gets a Minister to make a statement and accede to the will of the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that there are several opportunities that the hon. Lady could use. One is parliamentary questions, or she might like to consider tabling a private notice question. However, that will have to be done next week. As the hon. Lady knows, the Chair has no authority to request a Minister to come here to make statements.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has pointed out that what we are discussing is literally a matter of life and death and I


believe that the House agrees. There is indisputable evidence that if a child is restrained in a car its chances of death or injury in a crash or collision are reduced by two thirds.
To some extent, we are involved in lotteries. Following the exemption regulations that will be made if the Bill is enacted some children will still be exposed to risk. The House must accept that this is one of a set of compromises. There seems to be general agreement that the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day)—to provide that where restraints are fitted children should be restrained unless they are exempted—is the better way forward, but it is not perfect. There is plenty of scope for the criticism that my hon. Friend or the Government should have proposed that no child should be carried in a vehicle unless he or she is restrained, but we are not going that far and we are taking this position openly.
The second lottery is that to a large extent it is a matter of chance when the family becomes aware of the importance of restraints in cars. Esther Rantzen, who headed the highly effective "That's Life" television campaign in 1986, which trebled the sale of restraints from 300,000 to 1 million per year, was one of those who put restraints in their cars only after the campaign had begun. For the child, it is a lottery as to when the parents decide to fit and to use restraints.
Frankly, it is also a lottery whether a Bill of this kind gets through the House. There are important amendments and new clauses for consideration and the whole House is aware that it does not take much to leave a Bill insufficient time to get through. I make no further comment.
The new clause and the associated amendments address the question whether the regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for raising that issue. Other issues are coming forward, including one from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, which I believe will also improve the Bill.

Mr. Waller: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would respond to this important point. His predecessor said that he could not conceive of any Government moving from the position that the intention is not to require compulsory wearing when there is not compulsory fitting. It is my hon. Friend's intention, as his comments at earlier stages of the Bill suggested, that even though there is not compulsory fitting it will be compulsory to use a device if it is fitted?

Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps I may answer that question somewhat obliquely. Those who regard themselves as libertarians may say that one should not compromise—either we have our liberties or we do not—but I am not of that group. I believe that it would be going too far for the Government to support a Bill requiring every car which might carry a child to have restraints fitted, covering all generations—for instance, a rear-facing infant carrier and a booster cushion as well as an adaptor for an adult seat belt. I am a compromiser and I do not wish to go that far.
I suspect that in 1980 when my right hon. and learned Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was responsible for these matters he had in mind that the next stage would be compulsory fitment of restraints. The present Bill does not propose that, and neither do I. To some extent, therefore, I am resiling from what my right hon. and learned Friend said. As I have said, I am a

compromiser. The Government support the intention in the first part of the new clause that the affirmative procedure should apply. The negative procedure was previously acceptable to the Government because the fact that it was used in relation to children in the front seats of cars constituted a reasonable precedent. The issue having been raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South and accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle in amendment No. 18, however, the Government are content with the affirmative procedure.
I shall certainly add the representatives of taxi operators and drivers to those to be consulted before the Government bring forward regulations. It is sensible to listen to the views of taxi drivers and important to consider the views of taxi users. We do not know whether a majority of drivers and users wish the regulations to cover children in the backs of taxis where restraints are already fitted. I certainly give an assurance that taxi interests will be taken into account.
The second part of the new clause deals with whether there should be a three-year experiment. The regulations covering children in the front seats of cars were not the subject of a three-year experiment and there is no good reason for making such a provision in this context. We publish the annual casualty report, "Road Accidents Great Britain", all the information is likely to be available and special studies can be undertaken. If the House discovered—I am sure that it will not—some counterproductive element in the combination of this legislation and the exemption regulations, we could return to the matter.
To put the matter in graphic terms, if in any other circumstances I held a child 5 ft above a glass table and dropped it head first, "criticism" would be an understatement for the way in which people would describe my action. If I took a child and threw it at a glass window as hard as I could, the effect would be less than that of a child hitting a windscreen in a crash at 20 mph. There is every reason for parents to fit and use restraints. The new clause and the amendment deal with whether it is appropriate—that is where the exemptions, affirmative resolutions and regulations come in—to get many more parents to ensure that our children who, most of the time, travel in our own cars, have a basic element of protection. All the public response that the Government have received shows that the public want that.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to be able to make an intervention rather than a speech, as I want the Bill to reach the statute book. It is an important measure and the all-party disablement group certainly takes that view. Will the Minister give an assurance that, in drafting the regulations, he will consult bodies such as RADAR, the Spastics Society and Mencap, which have an interest in the position of disabled children, which will have to be taken into account in the detailed aspects of the regulations?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes.

Mr. Forth: The House owes much gratitude both to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for introducing new clause 1, in which I am especially interested, and to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who has enlightened us considerably on the relationship between the role of Parliament writ large and the Executive. The hon. Gentleman speaks with the


authority of one who has been a member of two Parliaments. He has also had the advantage of seeing, as I had the honour to see some time ago, the different way in which these matters are dealt with in the European context. In many ways, we can learn from other institutions and draw on what we have seen. The hon. Gentleman eloquently set out the difficulties involved.
I support the new clause because it has become obvious to me, even at this stage, that there is a considerable lacuna between what hon. Members wish and the position, as far as we can understand it, of my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department. As long as there is that difference or gap, we are entitled to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has asked, for a full statement at an early stage of the direction in which we are heading, in advance of the detailed regulations being produced.
When we are dealing, as has been suggested many times, not just with life and death, but with matters that involve intervening in detail in the behaviour of families and individuals in the car, or wherever they are, we are entitled to know as fully and as early as possible exactly what will be involved, what the regulations will mean and how they will be put forward. A fact that has been alluded to more than once is that Ministers change. I have the greatest respect for the Minister for Roads and Traffic, but we cannot guarantee that he will be the Minister who will guide the regulations through all their stages and that the assurances and the insight into his thinking that he has given us today will be the guiding influence throughout the development of the regulations.
Given that fact, it will be of great importance that the House is given the opportunity at every possible stage of knowing what is in Minister's minds and how their thinking is developing, especially in view of representations such as those made just now by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about specific groups that may have a real interest in amending and developing the regulations to suit their own needs, to say nothing of taxi drivers. I have not heard anyone answer the point that I made in an intervention about mini cabs, and whether they will be regarded as different from taxis. Such matters will have to be considered and it will be of the greatest importance that we are made aware early on of the way in which thinking is developing.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I should like to be helpful to my hon. Friend because he has raised an important point, which I should have liked to cover at some length, but it was difficult to do so under the new clause and the associated amendments.
We have given clear assurances on the question of wide consultation, and the Act of Parliament requires consultation anyway. It will include a consultation document, which will be laid in the Library of the House of Commons and will be available to Members of Parliament. We shall give as much publicity as possible to the consultation process. We shall also try to make sure that our conclusions after the consultation are made known before we introduce the regulations.
I should have liked to discuss the matter at greater length, as we did in Committee, but new clause 1 is about the affirmative resolution procedure, which has been

accepted by those who have spoken in the debate. The only remaining issue is whether there should be a three-year experiment, and I have given the argument against that.
I should like to make just one other point because most matters have been dealt with fully and there are many other amendments to be discussed, which will have to be dealt with in detail. We must consider carefully the European dimension of such legislation. With 1992 very much in mind, increasingly we shall have to be aware of the extent to which measures that we take in a public arena such as this are in harmony with those that may apply at the European level. We are not yet satisfied that enough thought has been given to that. The promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), has not mentioned it yet, but he may take the opportunity to do so. The Minister has not done so. It has been touched upon only lightly. We should be foolish to go too far down the road of detailed regulations at this stage.
Perhaps this is one of the answers to the Minister's point about a three-year trial period. It would take from when the Bill comes into effect until 1992, which would give us the opportunity to appraise the way in which the legislation was working. We could have another look at it in view of everything that we are trying to achieve, with the free movement of trade, in 1992. So I give that answer to the Minister when he says that we have not had such a trial period before. We have not had 1992 before, nor have we been faced with the rapid development of the harmonisation concept across Europe. We are dealing with vehicles, traffic regulations and individual freedom, so I should have thought that the European dimension was of the greatest importance.
For all those reasons, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in new clause 1 and I pay tribute to what the hon. Member for Bradford, South told the House. I thank the Minister for accepting what has been said.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) about the relative merits of the affirmative and negative resolution procedures. When important legislation is being considered, most hon. Members are too familiar with the practice of Governments of all political persuasions to slip through secondary legislation which has serious consequences. Because the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), has accepted the merits of the argument, he does the House a great service and thereby strengthens the case for the legislation.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) knows that my view is that there is no merit in his proposal that there should be a three-year trial period. That would merely allow those who have acted with self-indulgence on the issue to go through the same routine once again in three years' time.
There is a widespread understanding of the Bill's merits. The limited number of bogus statistics that have been produced to try to contradict the case would no doubt be produced three years into any trial period, but they could not disprove the case about the benefits of child restraints.

Mr. Waller: I do not recall whether the hon. Gentleman contributed to it, but the debate on renewing the regulations was useful and provided an opportunity for statistics to be produced and argued about, and for road


safety issues to be considered by the House. There are not so many opportunities for such issues to come before the House. So I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that another debate would be pointless. Debates have been useful previously.

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman manages to persuade his Government to have a debate on road safety, the Opposition would be more than happy to take part, but it should not be on the specific issue of renewing the regulations once they have been in force for three years. That is the distinction that the hon. Gentleman must accept.
I do not think that it would serve any purpose if I were to detain the House any longer on an issue that has received a thorough airing.

Mrs. Wise: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I assure him that in future I shall take the daily statutory instruments list, and I shall recommend all my hon. Friends to do so. My hon. Friend made me shiver in my shoes at the thought of what I had been missing.
I assure hon. Members that I am extremely interested in road safety. Indeed, the Minister and I correspond from time to time on the matter. He knows that, as a general rule, I am also in favour of compulsion in road safety. I do not regard myself as a "libertarian". I am in favour, for instance, of the helpful regulations that the Minister introduced to ensure that there are mandatory speed limits in contraflows.
I started by being favourably disposed towards the Bill and I looked at the amendments with great scepticism. However, I now think that there is much more merit in the criticism than I at first realised, and I have become extremely worried. I am afraid that the sponsors of the Bill and the Minister have not addressed my anxieties. I veer from side to side, thinking, "Are we passing something impossibly draconian? Are we passing something eminently reasonable?" through to, "Are we passing anything at all?" My last point is relevant to the regulations.
I was worried that I did not know what the Bill contained because it depended so much on regulations. Now I am worried about whether the Bill exists at all because I do not know whether there will ever be any regulations at all, good, bad or indifferent. The Minister has not allayed my anxiety and I must rely on what he said in Committee. He said:
The powers that the Bill would introduce are the same as those that we already have in respect of adults travelling in the rear of cars. We have not used those powers and we have no plan to do so. I believe that timing is critical.
The Minister said that one reason why we have a high compliance rate is that we were in tune with the climate of opinion when the law was introduced. He continued:
For the time being, I want to continue to do everything I can to encourage voluntary use of rear restraints by adults…There is a growing body of public opinion that we should move towards obligatory use of rear restraints by children. The Bill reflects that shift."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 27 April 1988; c. 10.]
I did not think that the Bill was about moving towards that, and general propaganda. If that is the intention behind it, I am not worried because I am completely in favour of seat belts and restraints for children.

Mr. Day: So what is the problem?

Mrs. Wise: I am describing what the problem is. If the hon. Gentleman had put more thought into this, he could have produced a better Bill which we could have insisted the Government should activate. We are debating we know not what. We started by discussing matters that are contained in regulations, whether there should be explanatory statements and how much consultation there should be. Then I was electrified to find when I read the Committee reports that the Minister is not contemplating introducing any regulations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have a moving group of people interested in this subject and one needs to take the Second Reading together with the Committee stage for enlightenment. If Parliament gives the Government the power to introduce regulations for exemptions for certain categories, which is what the whole regulation-making power is about, the Government's intention would be to activate the Bill so that children must wear restraints, where they are fitted, unless they are covered by an exemption category. I hope that makes the position plain. The distinction that I drew in Committee about the position of adults was that the Government did not intend to be unnecessarily draconian in proposing exemption regulations to Parliament.

Mrs. Wise: There seem to be far more good reasons for activating regulations in relation to adults than in relation to certain categories of children because with adults regulations can be enforced. If we pass Bills or regulations which may not be reasonable and certainly are not workable or enforceable, it will bring our laws into disrepute, and that is a serious matter.

Mr. Day: These matters were covered fully on Second Reading. If the hon. Lady takes the time and trouble to read Hansard, she will see that all these matters, including enforcement, were covered riot only by me in a lengthy speech, which I do not propose to make again today, but by other hon. Members from both sides of the divide on this question. The Hon. Lady is dragging out the proceedings unnecessarily.

Mrs. Wise: The matter before us is not the hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading, but the Bill which he has introduced. The Government's intentions in relation to the Bill and the regulations are not as meritorious as some of the arguments used to promulgate them.
I read the briefing from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and I agree with everything in it, but it does not meet my anxieties. The Minister said that it was up to Parliament to decide what to do with the Bill and that it was up to the Government to decide what regulations to introduce if the Bill passes successfully through both Houses. We have heard how unsatisfactory our procedures are for regulations, even under the affirmative procedure. They receive cursory examination. This is the only opportunity that the House has to show what bothers us and what must be dealt with when regulations are introduced.
11.45 am
Sweeping statements have been made in response to anxieties, such as that we can rely on the police and the courts to use common sense. It is a worthy virtue, but it is not always the most useful for dealing with immediate problems with kids. Looking back to my children's


childhood, I must admit that I am horrified at the attitude that we all had before seat belts became the order of the day. I will take second place to no one in my advocacy of wearing restraints. That is not the problem. The question is, what is the most effective way of bringing that about?
Children are not passive. They are not parcels that can be wrapped up neatly and trussed for transit. At a relatively early age they develop views, abilities and capacities of their own. I do not think that there is any sign that that problem is being taken on board and it makes me wonder whether it is humanly possible to produce regulations which are sufficiently tight to have any effect. They may be so riddled with exceptions as to give people he impression that there is as much to be said for breaching them as for observing them. I do not want that to happen.
It would be easy for us all if the hon. Gentleman had introduced a Bill about babies—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is going wide of the Bill, let alone new clause 1.

Mrs. Wise: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to show the relevance of my point.
Much of the discussion about the sort of regulations which can be introduced, statements on consultation and whether there should be an experimental period, relates to the problems which will face the Government in drafting adequate regulations. Whereas parents and drivers can be completely in control of what happens to infants in a rear seat because infants can be trussed for transit, that is not the case when a child reaches an age when, for example, it can unbuckle a belt or it develops views about how co-operative it will be. The problem with the Bill is that if children aged 10 or 13 years know that there is a danger that their parents may be regarded as breaking the law, it will encourage a sort of daring and defiant approach in them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) eloquently said, regulations should not be a series of loopholes. I prefer regulations that are more limited in scope—such as those relating to babies could be, which are and should be enforceable—to those that take on a range of issues that are better left to persuasion.
I am not sure that we are right to discard easily the idea of an experimental period. I would be happier if I could see more clearly what is likely to result from our deliberations. The problem is that none of us can see what will result. The new clause and the amendments are a brave attempt to clarify matters.
Initially, I was in favour of the Bill and I took it for granted that there were no problems with it. It was only when I examined it carefully—starting from the position of being in favour of this compulsory measure—that I realised that it might not be appropriate. I have not received from the Minister any clear idea about how he will cope with the problems. We could not expect him to lay the regulations before us in detail, but he could have said that the problems are capable of solution.
I am against passing legislation that calls on the Government to take measures that cannot reasonably be taken. It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that the Government will consider the regulations, but I do not have such faith in the Government. I am worried that the Bill will fail to introduce—

Mr. Day: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes, 107, Noes 4.

Division No. 303]
[11.53 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Allen, Graham
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Alton, David
Knapman, Roger


Anderson, Donald
Knowles, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Knox, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lamond, James


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Latham, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Battle, John
Lightbown, David


Beckett, Margaret
Livingstone, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Beith, A. J.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bendall, Vivian
McCrea, Rev William


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNamara, Kevin


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Madden, Max


Bottomley, Peter
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bowis, John
Marek, Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Mates, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Caborn, Richard
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Carrington, Matthew
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Cran, James
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Cryer, Bob
Murphy, Paul


Darling, Alistair
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Day, Stephen
Paisley, Rev Ian


Devlin, Tim
Pendry, Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Rhodes James, Robert


Doran, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Rowlands, Ted


Durant, Tony
Ruddock, Joan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fearn, Ronald
Short, Clare


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Skinner, Dennis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Flynn, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Stern, Michael


Fyfe, Maria
Thorne, Neil


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Waldegrave, Hon William


Gordon, Mildred
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Wall, Pat


Gould, Bryan
Walley, Joan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Widdecombe, Ann


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Wigley, Dafydd


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wray, Jimmy


Harman, Ms Harriet



Hayes, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Harry Cohen and


Henderson, Doug
Mr. Barry Sheerman.


Hood, Jimmy





NOES


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)



Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Eric Forth and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Gary Waller.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: There can be no point of order in between putting the two Questions. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order later.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 89.

Division No. 304]
[12.03 pm


AYES


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Madden, Max


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Primarolo, Dawn


Cohen, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Wall, Pat


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Wray, Jimmy


Knight, Greg (Derby North)



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Eric Forth and


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Gary Waller.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Allen, Graham
Knapman, Roger


Alton, David
Knox, David


Anderson, Donald
Latham, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lightbown, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Battle, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Margaret
McCrea, Rev William


Beggs, Roy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Beith, A. J.
McNamara, Kevin


Bendall, Vivian
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Marek, Dr John


Bottomley, Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mates, Michael


Bowis, John
Meale, Alan


Bradley, Keith
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Caborn, Richard
Moate, Roger


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Carrington, Matthew
Murphy, Paul


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Cran, James
Paisley, Rev Ian


Day, Stephen
Pendry, Tom


Devlin, Tim
Pike, Peter L.


Dickens, Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Dixon, Don
Richardson, Jo


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Ruddock, Joan


Durant, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Sheerman, Barry


Farr, Sir John
Shersby, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Short, Clare


Flynn, Paul
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stern, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Strang, Gavin


Gordon, Mildred
Thorne, Neil


Gould, Bryan
Waldegrave, Hon William


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Walley, Joan


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Widdecombe, Ann


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wigley, Dafydd


Hayes, Jerry



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Henderson, Doug
Mr. Frank Doran and


Hood, Jimmy
Mr. Bill Michie.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Pat Wall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in today's proceedings my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised a point of order about the threatened closure of the KP factory in her constituency which employs—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman if he will allow me to.
I have had two points of order from the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). No breach of order of the

House has been committed. Mr. Speaker has received no application from a Minister to come to the House. I can take no further points of order on that matter.

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the chicanery obvious—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."]—in view of the fact that the last new clause was debated for almost two and half hours and the major speakers in that debate were people who believe in murder in the womb?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been in the Chair since early this morning. The last group of amendments were correctly debated.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may recall that, to save time, I agreed to withdraw the three amendments in my name in favour of amendment No. 18. Is amendment No. 18 accepted by agreement, or will it be taken at the end?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It will be taken at the end, when we reach it on the Amendment Paper. Mr. Speaker has agreed that it is possible to have a vote on amendment No. 18 if that is the will of the House.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you heard the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) make an allegation to the effect that those hon. Members who spoke in the earlier debate were in favour of murdering babies—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. As I keep saying, no breach of our Standing Orders has been committed and I have correctly responded to the point of order correctly made by the hon. Member for Rochdale. That is over.

Sir Bernard Braine: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I make no allegations, but we all know what has been happening. When I came into the Chamber earlier in the debate, the majority of hon. Members present were opponents of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which was subjected to the same time treatment—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to discuss legislation which is not before us. It is in the best interests of the House and every hon. Member in it, irrespective of their views on these matters, for us to proceed with the Bill before us.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who was not in the Chamber during the debate and did not contribute to it —that does not apply to other hon. Members who sought to raise points of order—made an allegation against hon. Members who have been in the Chamber and who have contributed to the debate. Indeed, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) who spoke for longest during the debate on the new clause and amendments, made clear at the beginning of his speech that he was a supporter of the Bill with which the hon. Member for Rochdale is concerned. I spoke in the debate for eight minutes on behalf of my constituents, who are very concerned about certain provisions of the Bill that we are now debating, I find it grossly offensive to be accused by the hon. Member


for Rochdale of being in favour of murdering babies. Therefore I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the greatest respect, to ask the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw the allegation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have listened to all these points of order. There is no question of me asking an hon. Member to withdraw his remarks. [Interruption.] It would be in the best interest of the House for all those who are interested in this Bill, and the others that are to come before us, to get on with it.

Clause 1

COMPULSORY WEARING OF REAR SEAT BELTS BY CHILDREN

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 9, after 'fitted', insert
'or has been fitted at any time'.
I shall not attempt to delay the procedings. I want the Bill to reach the statute book. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, especially after my frustrating experience yesterday. I sat through the debate on prisons because I wanted to make an important speech about the spread of AIDS in prisons and from there to the public outside, but I was not called. I sat through the next debate, too, on the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill, which affects my constituents. I was called to speak in that debate but I had only 30 seconds. The frustration left me with a sore throat. Despite the amendments that I have tabled to this Bill, I thought that again I would not be called. The frustration made me think that I was beginning to develop a sore throat. I need the regular exercise of speaking in the House to avoid such frustration.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on his choice of subject. The Bill is full of good intentions. The Bill was not thoroughly debated in Committee. I noted that in Committee the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that the last time a similar Bill was debated in Committee, five sittings were devoted to it. There was only one Committee sitting on this Bill. Consequently, on Report and Third Reading there must be a full debate. If not, the consequences will be serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made that point earlier today.
The Bill is intended to save children's lives. In Committee, the Minister said that last year 60 children were killed and 7,000 injured when travelling unrestrained in the back of cars. Those figures are horrendous. Many of the children were killed or injured in low-speed crashes. As I came to the House this morning, I saw a little girl in the back of a car. She was bobbing up and down just as her father manoeuvred dangerously into a bus lane. A car or a skip might have been parked there, and there could have been an accident. I hope that the Minister will take action about unlighted skips that cause many accidents in my constituency and elsewhere.
My hon. Friends and I are worried about the abuse of police powers. During the miners' strike the police used all sorts of excuses to pull up miners while they were travelling in cars. If legislation of this kind had been on the statute book then, they might have used it to pull up miners who had children in the backs of their cars. We are worried

about the injustice that could be caused through sheer spite. However, the police complaints procedure has been improved. It could be improved further. We have to decide whether injustice should be tolerated if lives can be saved. The saving of life comes out on top. Despite the good intentions of the hon. Member for Cheadle, there are gaping loopholes in the Bill. My amendment seeks to close them and to improve the Bill.
New clause 2 provides that all motor car manufacturers that do not fit rear seat belts can be fined £1,000. Unfortunately, that new clause has not been called. I wanted to fill a loophole. I understand that this is no excuse for not doing it in the Bill. Some motor car manufacturers are anti-social when it comes to their profits and want to maximise them regardless of the safety implications. It is similar to the approach to unleaded petrol. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) went to a seminar of motor car manufacturers to point out that a pathetic number of cars are produced to run on unleaded petrol, although the Chancellor boasted in his Budget speech about the improvements that there would be.
The amendment will prevent people ripping out rear seat belts just to get round the law. This may be done by second-hand car salesmen—a much maligned group who, despite doing a decent job to make a living, have a reputation for being unscrupulous. I recall that President Nixon was linked to second-hand car salesman. It was asked: "Would you buy a used car from this man?" In that case, it was proved true that one should not. A car without rear seat belts may be used as a selling point and be sold more cheaply. I am tempted to say that we may well have to apply the test: "Would you buy a used car from this man?" to the next leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats, but we shall see what happens. A clever solicitor may use the fact that seat belts have been ripped out to get round the law.
Legislation with loopholes may result in extra administration and costs to the police and courts, to no good effect. The original purpose of the legislation may not be achieved. Our job is to close loopholes. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the hon. Member for Cheadle can give me an assurance that he will carefully consider the matter and try to close this loophole with an amendment in the other place.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, I think, that he was withdrawing the amendment—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get this absolutely right. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) asked for assurances before he would withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman asked for assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). Vehicles registered after April 1987 must have rear seat belts fitted. Vehicles registered before do not. The amendment would be impracticable. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle may be able to give assurances that he will continue to consider the point, but the Government's clear advice is that it would make the law unenforceable, and it is important to have an enforceable law to meet the main aim of those who support the Bill, which is that more children should be protected more often.

Mr. Forth: I am slightly confused. I was waiting for the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to explain what his amendment involved and what its aim was, but he did not do so. There may be some substance in the amendment. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might say that if people removed seat belts already fitted in a vehicle with a view to evading the purpose of the Bill, the amendment would catch them. He referred to a loophole and I assume that that is the one that he meant, in which case there is an interesting divergence of view between the hon. Member for Leyton and the Minister.
I cannot imagine why my hon. Friend the Minister did not want to explain his views rather more fully. Let us suppose that there are anchorages or fixing points in the rear of the vehicle and someone removes the seat belts to exploit the loophole to which the hon. Member for Leyton referred. I should have thought that it was an eminently enforceable, checkable and policeable proposition to say that it would be possible to establish that that had happened. If a vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident involving injury, the police could readily satisfy themselves whether the vehicle contained anchorage or fixing points for seat belts and whether those seat belts had been removed from it.

Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend is being carried away by flights of fancy. I have just purchased a second-hand car. Under the amendment, I would have had to ask the previous owner whether there had ever been belts in the car. As he is dead, I might have some difficulties. Whatever the merits of the amendment, it is wholly unenforceable in law. I invite the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to drop it so that we can get on.

Mr. Forth: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right. Even though he may not be gifted with great mechanical knowledge or interest, I am sure that by looking at the car even superficially he could satisfy himself that rear seat belts had been fitted or that provision had been made for them. That is not an unreasonable or impossible request.
I believe that there is substance in the amendment. I am not satisfied with the peremptory way in which the Minister has dismissed it. He has not satisfied me. I wonder whether he has satisfied the House—

Ms. Clare Short: I am satisfied.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady may be satisfied, but I am not.

Mr. Day: If my hon. Friend will allow it, I would like the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to tell us whether he is satisfied and will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. If the hon. Member for Leyton had explained the matter a little more fully, and if it had been dealt with in a more leisurely manner rather than in an unseemly rush, probably we could have resolved it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) must restrain himself. He was getting excited and encouraging the hon. Member for Leyton to go a little more quickly than was strictly necessary. Let me give my hon. Friend some advice. If he allowed the matter to unfold in the fullness of time, he might find that we progress rather more quickly than we are at present. I have been provoked quite needlessly to my

feet, partly because the hon. Member for Leyton could not fully explain the amendment and partly because the Minister gave a most unsatisfactory response.

Ms. Short: I shall attempt to help the hon. Gentleman. I heard both the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and the Minister's response. At first it seemed to me that there was a loophole and that people could remove seat belts and prevent the law from being implemented. The Minister then explained that the law already provides that every car produced after 1986–87 must have rear seat belts. That is an absolute requirement. Therefore, if one removes them, one is in breach of the law. That is a better, neater and tighter way of achieving the object of the amendment.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady who, in her inimitably elegant way, has made in an intervention points that she might have been tempted to make in a speech. She may still be tempted to make a speech—

Ms. Short: indicated dissent.

Mr. Forth: That is not the case. However, if the hon. Member for Leyton were to wish to withdraw his amendment, he would have to ask the leave of the House. I am not prepared to give him my leave to withdraw it unless the Minister can satisfy me about why the point that he made about unenforceabilky is relevant—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The point that I should like to share with my hon. Friend—I think that I have already shared it with the House—is that there is no loophole. Vehicles registered after April 1987 must have rear seat belts fitted. The provisions of this Bill would then have effect. There is no practical way of knowing whether vehicles registered before 1987 had previously had restraints fitted. Let us suppose, for example, that a. previous owner had a rear-facing infant carrier as part of the car and that that was taken away when the car was sold. Tracking back through the vehicle's history is. unenforceable. I spoke briefly because I thought that my explanation was clear.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is now suggesting that I alone was unable to follow his clear explanation. That is typical of my hon. Friend's incisiveness, elegance of thought and ability to put me down without any great effort. However, I am still not happy because I still believe—I shall make this point only once again because I do not want to delay the House—that many types of fittings for rear seat belts would leave a clear trace on the vehicle—for example, mounting points or drilled holes. I should have thought that it would be eminently easy to trace whether there had been a fitting before.
As I seem to be the only hon. Member who can see that point I do not think that it is right to pursue it. I shall trust, as I nearly always do, my hon. Friend the Minister and leave the matter in his safe hands, and I shall leave the matter, as I sometimes do, to the judgment of the hon. Member for Leyton and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, the promoter of the Bill, to see whether they can sort it out between them, given the hints that I have dropped.

Mr. Day: My hon. Friend the Minister is right that there could certainly be some enforcement difficulties. I compliment the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on


his approach. I know that he is a sincere and objective supporter of the Bill and I am grateful for his support. I hope that, in view of the Minister's explanation, which I found satisfactory, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment and allow us to proceed.

Mr. Cohen: I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. It was important to air the matter and to hear what the Minister had to say. We shall read carefully his comments about unenforceability and, if need be, the matter can be raised in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Waller: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'under the age of and insert
'between the ages of three and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'fourteen' and insert 'sixteen'.

Mr. Waller: I recall the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who, in 1980, was the Minister for Roads and Traffic. He drew attention to the fact that it could be dangerous to require a small child to wear a seat belt that was not intended for a child. He stated:
If the belt is worn in such a way that it is across the neck of the child, the belt is a positive danger."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 23 January 1980; c. 84]
In the regulations that we are to lay before the House—we do not have an opportunity at this stage to know exactly what form they will take—my hon. Friend the Minister is to state what types of belt should be worn in what circumstances. Presumably there will be some reference to the ages and sizes of children.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Would it not be advisable to specify in the regulations that alternative linkage points should be provided? From my experience of adult seat belts, I know that cars are not designed for short fat ladies. The belt cuts across my neck and in an accident I should probably be decapitated. Some newer cars provide alternative linkage points so that people can choose the one that suits them best, but it is not a requirement for all cars. With children, who vary greatly in size according to their age, it is even more important to provide alternative fixing points for seat belts.

Mr. Waller: I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of that. Indeed, in my discussions, I have had many complaints about the difficulty of fitting children into certain types of restraint. The search must continue for better types of restraint so that children can be secured safely and the task is less ardous for parents. Parents would then be more willing to undertake the task and the children might be more comfortable and thus less anxious to extricate themselves in the way that I described earlier.
The regulations will evitably be somewhat complicated. My hon Friend the Minister has confirmed that if restraints are fitted they will be required to be worn. As there is no compulsion for child restraints to be fitted, some parents, guardians or drivers may decide, as they will be legally entitled to decide, not to put in special child safety restraints. I understand that such restraints are quite expensive and although one or two companies have very

good schemes enabling parents to obtain them on hire or lease, some parents will simply not do so and there is no requirement that they should. The regulations being somewhat complicated, it seems reasonable to assume that some drivers will believe that because there are belts in the car those belts must be worn by children too young or too small to wear them safely. That is a matter of considerable concern, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and many others have pointed out, that that could constitute a positive danger to some children.

Mrs. Wise: The difficulties that the hon. Gentleman describes are mechanical aspects of design and thus capable of being overcome in the ways suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that babies are most capable of being safely restrained and that the advantage of this legislation will be that children grow up with the habit of being restrained and parents will acquire the expectation that restraints should be provided? The hon. Gentleman's amendment seems to go in the opposite direction. Has he considered those points?

Mr. Waller: I entirely agree and I would firmly advise anyone with any doubt on the matter that they should ensure that any child, virtually from birth, is securely restrained. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) has stated positively, however, that there is no intention of making it a legal requirement at this time to fit such equipment. That being so, whether we like it or not, inevitably there will be some cars where that equipment is not fitted.
Also, parents who normally carry teenagers, who could happily wear a normal belt, may occasionally find that they have to carry a baby or a toddler in the rear, but they do not have the suitable fitting. There is no proposal that such a fitting should be required. If there are no belts, it will be permissible for the child to be carried in the rear of the vehicle.
12.45 pm
Even if my hon. Friend the Minister introduces regulations that specify an exemption for a child of under three or four to be carried, there is always a danger, because parents cannot be expected to be familiar with the detailed regulations but may know from the Bill that there is a requirement that, if belts are fitted, they should be worn. Therefore, they may perhaps wrongly rely on the standard equipment that is now required to be fitted to all motor vehicles.

Mrs. Wise: Will not the hon. Gentleman join some of us in urging that the regulations should ensure that appropriate fittings for infants are included, along with the compulsory fittings for adults? Is not that the way in which we should proceed? Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is babies who are more vulnerable because they are the lightest? It is easier for them to be thrown through the roof or the windscreen.

Mr. Waller: Indeed. We have all seen the horrific films of mock-ups, with babies being thrown forward through the windscreen of a car. I particularly condemn adults who hold a baby in front of them, perhaps in the front of the car. In many cases a baby has been killed by the weight of


an adult or crushed between the adult and the dashboard or windscreen, but most often the baby is thrown forward through the windscreen.
We know from experience that if a person is ejected from a vehicle, especially a baby, his chances of survival are much less. I remember cases on motorways of children, because of a sudden change of direction, being ejected from a car and not surviving.
In 1980 the Department of Transport produced a draft document, which said:
People under 5 feet in height (including children) may he unable to wear a seat belt without discomfort because the diagonal strap lies too high on the body.
I reiterate the need to devise better fittings in future, which can be adjusted. However, unfortunately, we are not talking about the ideal; we are talking about the present law and how parents and drivers will deal with the law as set out in the Bill.
We have no opportunity to see the proposed regulations and it now appears that there will be no statement before they are laid, so we have to take the Bill at face value. Parents or drivers might make the reasonable assumption that they must use a belt, whatever it may be, because it is fitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has said time and again that if a belt is fitted, it is required to be worn. That is why I tabled the amendment.
I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and the Minister have to say. The great risk with such legislation is that it is not clear and we can read into it what we will. We do not know what the regulations may be and we fear that if they are not straightforward—I do not see how they can be, bearing in mind the different permutations for which one would have to make allowances—we may well put children into greater danger than they are in without the legislation.

Mr. Day: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has taken great interest in the Bill from the word go and I have no doubt that his intentions are honourable. Indeed, on many occasions his contributions have been constructive and helpful. But with all due respect, the matter in amendment No. 20 is undoubtedly best considered in regulations and I should like to make some suggestions about what the regulations might be.
The choice of three years in the amendment is arbitrary, and I cannot see why that period has been chosen. Equally, what the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said about babies being at risk is correct. There is no reason why the Bill should exclude babies and toddlers in appropriate restraints. There is certainly no published evidence to suggest that the use of adult belts by small children increases the risk of serious or fatal injury. However, there is mixed opinion about whether parents should be given no option but to restrain their children in this manner. That matter should be covered by regulations.

Mr. Waller: My right hon. and learned Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that it would be a positive danger if belts were worn the wrong way and across the neck of a child. It has been suggested by a former transport Minister, who has studied the matter with care, that we could therefore put a child into greater danger, despite our best intentions.

Mr. Day: That is indeed a correct quotation, but my right hon. and learned Friend was referring to a belt not applied appropriately; it is not said that it is dangerous to

use an adult belt. Many types of equipment can be dangerous if used incorrectly, so that is not a relevant criticism of the Bill.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the law relating to chidren in front seats of cars already stipulates that they must wear seat belts and that there is little record of any serious or minor injury to children wearing adult seat belts in front seats?

Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.
I see no reason why regulations should not take account of this important question and why babies under one year old should not have an approved infant carrier or carry-cot restraint. I see no reason why for children aged between one and four any type of approved child restraint should not be suitable. For children between the ages of five and 13 any type of approved child restraint or adult seat belt is suitable. If we approach the matter from that angle, bearing in mind that the Minister has the best interests of children at heart and has given assurances that he will consult widely, the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the House will oppose it.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As, alas, the attempts of hon. Members who supported the Abortion (Amendment) Bill are to be thwarted, I feel some relief from the obligation that I placed on myself not to speak in this debate. Perhaps I may address a few remarks to the amendment, which I support.
My bona fides of interest in this subject stretch back many years—before most Opposition Members appeared in the House. I have exercised enormous self-restraint since my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) introduced the Bill. Although the inevitability of life and the decision of the House in making the wearing of seat belts compulsory lead us to the next stage of accepting that that compulsion will apply to children, it should not lead us to produce legislation that is nonsense. We must try to ensure that legislation makes sense, is reasonable and practicable and will last some time on the statute book.
I support the amendment. Nonsense is inherent in the Bill about the age at which children are expected to wear belts because there is to be no compulsory fitting of seat belts suitable for small children. Under the Bill, parents will feel obliged to use seat belts for their children, and that may cause them considerable danger.
I recall that for many years the RAC opposed the compulsory wearing of sealt belts, principally because it thought it was quite immoral to oblige people to wear belts that might kill them. We have discussed the matter further over the years and, more recently, the then Minister responsible for the legislation, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said:
If the belt is worn in such a way that it is across the neck of the child, the belt is a positive danger…With the exception of the tiny child, it is possible to adjust the belt and the way that the child is sitting so as to make the belt a positive protection."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 23 January 1980; c. 84.]
He was saying that a seat belt could be reasonably adjusted, but not for a tiny child. I should have thought that that was manifest good sense—as is anything that my right hon. and learned Friend says. It is self-evident that one cannot safely put a tiny child in a seat belt that is not specifically tailored for it.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) intervened earlier and said, if I understood him correctly,


that it is necessary for children sitting in the front seat to wear a seat belt and that there is no evidence of any great harm being done to them. The answer is that no parent with a ha'porth of commonsense or concern for the safety of their tiny child would dream of putting it in the front seat of a motor car unless the child was being held or restrained by an adult, and the dangers of that are self-evident. The hon. Member for Huddersfield has a long history of interest in this subject, and much knowledge about it, but what he suggested has never been tested. Tests would arise only under the Bill.
My first objection to the Bill and reason for supporting the amendment is that to leave matters as they are is manifestly an invitation to danger for small children. Although those of us discussing these matters are very sensible, intelligent and reasonable I am afraid that one cannot always say that about everyone in society. I have seen the most unbelievable things happening in cars where parents have obviously not exercised any common sense over the way in which their very small children behave. It is perfectly possible for a parent to believe that the law states that they must wear a seat belt and that therefore their children must also wear one. Therefore the seat belt in the car must be put round the child no matter how old that child is. The courts are full of stupid, irresponsible, thoughtless and senseless parents who have behaved in a way in which some people may consider to be grossly negligent, if not criminal, with regard to very small children. That is life. That is what happens.
1 pm
I am afraid that if there is no qualification in this legislation to the effect that people with very small children need to have a seat belt fixed in the rear which is not meant for a very small child, very small children will inevitably sit in the back of cars wearing seat belts that are wholly inappropriate and dangerous to those children. That is why we should amend this part of the Bill.

Mr. Day: My hon. and learned Friend said that if the Bill is left as it is it will be an invitation to danger. That is an incredible statement to make about a Bill designed to protect the lives of young children. Surely the greatest danger for children would occur if the Bill did not become an Act. It is essential that the Bill is successful.
My hon. and learned Friend also said that the courts are full of people who have not complied with the law. He must accept that the present seat belt law is self-enforcing, and this legislation would be the same. In an opinion poll on this matter 90 per cent. of parents said that they saw the logic in compulsory restraint of their children. How on earth can my hon. and learned Friend claim that the courts will be full of people who will not comply with this?

Mr. Lawrence: I apologise if my lack of practice in dealing with these matters has caused me to express myself so badly. My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I do not for one moment doubt his bona fides and good intentions, which all of us share. It is very important that, in practice, we should protect our children from danger. However, there is a gap between that excellent intention, which we all share, and the practice that will emerge from the Bill. We must get the practice right. No amount of good intentions will save children's lives if they are put in danger in practice.
There is another danger facing a small child wearing an unsuitable belt. I am not referring to the fact that the child may be thrown from the back seat to the front and somehow damaged, or thrown into the well in the back seat area and hurt. I am referring to the fact that the child may be strangled by the belt if he is caught in a crash and minutes pass before he can be released from the wreckage.
That is why we must be particularly careful that the legislation makes practical sense. We all agree that the end in view is the safety of children and I do not for a moment resile from the necessity of such a measure being introduced if it is practical.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of a case reported in the newspapers recently where such a tragedy occurred? A very small child was belted in the rear of a car that was involved in an accident. The child could not be released and the mother watched her child burn to death because it was strapped into the back seat.

Mr. Lawrence: We can always find examples to support either side of the argument. My hon. Friend has put a finger on a particular case, underlining and supporting the point I was making.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope to say a word or two later, but I intervene now because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was referring to a widely publicised tragic accident in which a child was burn to death when the car in which it was travelling was hit by another. However, subsequent expert investigations revealed that no child restraint had been fitted.

Mr. Lawrence: That shows that particular examples raised by one side of the House or the other may not always be reliable. Ultimately, we must rely on our own experience and common sense.
My first, and most important, single objection is that if we are not careful in introducing an amendment, we may put on to the statute book a measure that would result in causing the death or injury of the very children whom we seek to protect—principally, very young children who would not normally wear an adult restraint of the type most of us have in mind.
My second objection is that the Bill as drafted places an obligation upon the driver to excuse himself. He is required to explain why a child under the age of 14, being carried in a car in which a seat belt was fitted, was not properly restrained by it. That transfers the burden in a criminal matter to the accused. The essence of our law is that the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. It is not just a matter of theory. If there were to be any other general principle, we would need 10,000 times the number of courts that we have now.

Ms. Short: The hon. and learned Gentleman should be in favour of that.

Mr. Lawrence: No—I do not invite any more competition.
If we required people to give an account of themselves every time that we did not like what they were doing, because it was allegedly contrary to some supposed idea of the law, the legal system would become impossible to administer. There is a practical reason why the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish guilt. There is also the question of civil liberties, but I shall not waste the time of the House now in describing why that is so. Courts


are very jealous about creating too many situations in which the obligation is upon the accused person to give an account of himself, even if that account does not have to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt but only on the balance of probabilities.
There are many examples, though again I shall not take up the time of the House describing them all, where that burden of proof is reversed. It is always reversed where it is manifestly unjust or impossible for the law to be enforced unless a serious obligation is placed on the accused to explain himself—such as in cases involving the possession of an offensive weapon. If it is manifestly clear that it is an offensive weapon, obviously a person should be in possession of it in public only if he has some important excuse; the burden is on that person to explain himself.
What on earth is the justification for allowing the police to bring a prosecution against a person whose child was not restrained by a seat belt fitted in the rear of the vehicle? Why should such a person be required to go to court and offer a reasonable excuse? Why should the burden be transferred in that way? Why change the whole tenor of British law? Some of us have warned that the point will soon be reached where practically every item of legislation passed by the House will require that defendants give a reasonable excuse for their actions. This seems a splendid example. We have got into the habit of placing the burden of explanation on the accused, so it is very simple to put it into the Bill. I am against that on principle: I do not think that we should ever transfer the burden, unless it is important for the securing of justice in a serious criminal matter.

Mr. Waller: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that particularly difficult circumstances would arise if the driver were accompanied by only one person—a young child? Would it not cause considerable problems for a child to be expected to come to court and respond to questioning? After all we are ultimately dealing with the criminal law.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend tempts me, but he must not. It is precisely that sort of question that triggers off a temptation in me to spend the next hour or two explaining exactly why what he says is right. But I must resist the urge, however tempting it is. I am merely outlining my objections. If I went into chapter and verse of why I am making them, we could carry on until the end of the sitting, and, if we had another day, until the end of that day as well. I am specifically restraining myself—as if I were wearing a seat belt! I shall move on quickly to my third objection.
My hon. Friend the Minister has just said—and will say it again, no doubt—that these fears are unfounded, because provision will be made by regulation. I feel, however, that we must stop legislating by regulation. It is all too easy for the Government to say, "Give us the powers and we will regulate." The trouble with regulations is that we debate them from 10 pm until 11.30 pm or even later, and some of us who wish to speak are unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Regulations are an entirely inappropriate method of legislation, unless there is no other way.
Although I have the greatest confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister, and in the likelihood that the regulations will receive the widest consultation and

magnificent support from everyone and every organisation, I do not know how long he will be Transport Minister. I do not know whether I shall feel the same confidence in his successor, or in his successor's successor. I do not even know whether, when the matter is implemented by regulation, the same Government will be in office—although I am of course as confident as it is possible to be. [Interruption] I hope that I shall not be tempted down that line, because I know that you would stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Government by regulation is government by ignorance. We who are passing the laws now are ignorant of what will be in future regulations. We are signing a blank cheque.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now straying to the merits and demerits of regulations in general. He must direct his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me into line, and I shall direct my remarks specfically to the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister will say that I have no need to fear the use of rear restraints for tiny tots, because he will make a regulation.

Mr. Forth: My hon. and learned Friend will recall that earlier this morning our hon. Friend the Minister reassured us that extensive consultations would take place. Does he not feel that that will deal entirely with any reservations that he may have? He knows about the process of consultation between a Minister and other r j 8-1 interested parties. Our hon. Friend mentioned taxi drivers and responded to an intervention about the disabled; he is clearly prepared to talk to many different groups about the possible effect of the regulations. Does that not reassure my hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend is tempting me down another avenue that goes on for miles and miles. Those of us who have been active in this place know that consultations do not always end with the result that is anticipated when they are lovingly referred to by those who are to make the consultations. I have spoken for four and a half hours on a subject where there were consultations, consultations and yet more consultations. At the end of all that, the conclusion was a load of rubbish. Therefore, I have no great confidence that the mere fact of consultations taking place will achieve the correct result.
1.15 pm
Sometimes, after one has been consulting for a long time, one says, "Well, one person says one thing, another says something else and the whole thing is confusion. I have to come to a decision, and this is it." Opposition Members say that that is what happened on the community charge. They say that there were consultations, the Government were confused and that they came to the wrong conclusion. Therefore, consultations are not an excuse for regulations that may yet come before the House and which are unsigned cheques.
I know that the House is anxious to get on and I shall conclude. It will be dangerous if the Bill remains in its current form without an exception for tiny children. That was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the the Duchy of Lancaster in his speech in 1980. It will be dangerous for the tiny child. It is inappropriate to bring forward legislation by shovelling it


under the compendium of regulations that may or may not emerge in a form that we may or may not like and which we may or may not have an opportunity to debate. It is wholly against the principles of our law that we should, at every turn, place the obligation upon the accused person to explain himself. For those reasons, as the Bill stands on this matter, it is wrong and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is right and I support it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) tabled what I think the House will understand to be a probing amendment in order to consider the issues contained in that amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has told us about his considerable restraint in the early stages of the Bill—

Ms. Short: Restraint?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, I acknowledge the use of the word "restraint". Single-handedly my hon. and learned Friend could have blocked the Bill and he could still do so. The House needs to acknowledge that.

Mr. Lawrence: I have no intention of doing so.

Mr. Bottomley: I should pay a back-handed tribute to my hon. and learned Friend. I was voting for front seat belt wearing before he was. In fact, I am not sure whether he has got round to voting for front seat belt wearing. the countries that passed the front seat belt law 10 years ago are mainly stuck at compliance rates of about 60 per cent. We have a compliance rate of 95 per cent. Our experience shows that the British public will accept what is sensible, especially when Parliament has considered the issue, not necessarily at great length, but in some depth.
My belief and the belief of the supporters of the Bill and many who are agnostic is that if the Bill comes into effect with appropriate regulations that provide for exemptions, the wearing and protection rate for children and infants and, by extension—although not covered by the law—for adults in the back of cars, will increase and that avoidable disadvantage, distress, injury and misery will be avoided on a significant scale.
It is right that the question of appropriate restraints should be considered. However, if we are to obtain the benefit of consultation and the views of those outside the House as well as within, we need to have consultation. We need to bring forward the issues so that they can be considered inside and outside the House.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will not consider it necessary to press the amendment and to write an age limit into the Bill. That would be a mistake. It would put more people at risk and lose the advantage of consultation.

Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend consider that it would be better to go away and think further, accept that there is a need for legislation, and to come back with a Bill that contained more information and was more carefully drafted and less vague that the one before the House? Before too long, the House may have the opportunity of considering legislation on this subject, and it would be better if we could see what is proposed. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr.

Lawrence) that there is a real danger that confusion will be caused in the minds of those using cars if they cannot easily discern what is required of them. That would cause more danger, not less.

Mr. Bottomley: The sensible and right thing to do for parents and other adults who carry children in cars is well-known from television programmes, Department of Transport advice and the activities of a large group of organisations which support the Bill, not only because they want legislation but because they have professional experience and family organisational experience of the extra protection needed for children.
I do not need to remind the House of the extent of inquiries into the number of child abuse cases. I do not want to draw a narrow parallel with parents who regularly expose their children to unnecessary risk by taking them unrestrained in cars, but sometimes we get our balance of priorities wrong by not considering the end result that we are trying to avoid—the unnecessary death of children.
The Bill itself is plain. It provides that from a date to be announced children in the backs of cars must be restrained. What is not clear and precise is the degree of exemption that the regulations will cover. The Bill cannot be accused of being vague. If the regulations are to be acceptable, wide consultation is required which those who have questioned the details of the Bill would want Parliament to require the Government to carry out before producing the regulations.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton discussed the question of reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuse is an opportunity for those who have a child unrestrained in the back of the car not to be convicted. I should have thought that someone with experience of prosecuting and defending would prefer it not to be an absolute offence. In the rare cases of prosecution enforcement, the prosecution would have to demonstrate that the child was under a certain age, was in a car where restraint was fitted, and was not wearing it. The reasonable excuse question arises as to whether they should be convicted. Reasonable excuse allows mitigating circumstances to be put forward, and I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend would have pushed for such provision to be made if it was not included in the Bill.
Regulations can keep up with changes in technology. We have heard about those who are smaller, and we know about some of the adaptations for infants, for younger children and for adults. There can be adjustments to the shoulder height and adjustments at the back of the belt so that it can be brought down to suit any shoulder. Regulations allow future technology improvements to be taken into account, rather than waiting for the lottery of the private Member's Bill procedure.
It is not the tradition of the House that the Government should promote such a Bill. It requires only one hon. Member to prevent a Bill from getting through, and if that hon. Member is not satisfied the Bill will not get through. However, if the Bill does not get through today, hundreds of thousands of children will be left unprotected for years until another hon. Member brings forward a Bill, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), and allows the House to consider whether it is possible to bring in extra protection.

Mr. Bill Michie: I fully support the Minister's point that the Bill is important. It may not cover


everything that concerns me. This is not a filibuster. I wrote on 22 December to the promoters of the Bill about extending it, and I fully realise that that is not possible. Nevertheless, the fact that the Bill has certain weaknesses is no justification for it being lost, and we should at least trust the Government and the promoters of the Bill to try to extend it later on.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not accuse any hon. Member of trying to lose the Bill. I welcome some of the comments that have been made. Improvements were made in Committee, and there will be further improvements to the Bill if we make progress.
During the remaining hour and six minutes of the debate I ask those who have doubts about the Bill to consider allowing the Bill to be passed so that it may be considered in another place.

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend the Minister has made the reasonable point that a subject of this kind is normally the subject of private Member's Bills. If a Government Bill dealing with road safety were to be considered by the House in the relatively near future, is my hon. Friend able to confirm that it would provide an opportunity for a better-drawn provision of this nature to be incorporated in it? That is what happened on a previous occasion. This is not a once only attempt; if the Bill is lost, might there not be an opportunity before very long to introduce better proposals that could be incorporated in legislation?

Mr. Bottomley: Probably, but at a cost of 60 children dead and several thousand injured.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am conscious of the fact that there are some hon. Members who want to frustrate the Bill's progress. The Opposition agree with many of the points that the Minister has made, in particular that no advantage would be served if, as a matter of principle, those up to the age of three were removed from the provisions of the Bill. There are strong reasons for saying that they are the most vulnerable and most in need of protection of this kind. Both by size and ability to communicate they are the least able to make up their own minds.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has made an important point about the type of restraint that should be used. it is important that the regulations should get it right, but the evidence shows that a child in the rear of a car who is restrained by any kind of restraint is better off than a child who is completely unrestrained.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to a particular case, but the Minister assured the House that she was wrong. I read about the case that the hon. Lady quoted and I was horrified by it. I can think of nothing worse for a parent than to see his other child burning to death in the back of a car. All hon. Members realise that that could happen, but we have to strike a balance. It would be irresponsible not to recognise that something that will save life in the vast majority of cases might also cause death, but all the evidence clearly favours the restraint of children who travel in the back of cars.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Whenever a case is reported of a child under restraint having died in circumstances similar to those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) rightly referred, I make it a habit to ask for an investigation. During the last two years there have been two reports. The first referred to this fire, about

which I have given information. The second referred to a child who was travelling in the front seat of a car. It transpired that an unrestrained adult in the back of the car was thrown forward and crushed the child in the front seat. I shall continue to ensure that any reported cases are investigated and, where necessary, I shall make a report to the House.

Mr. Lloyd: I thank the Minister for intervening. He said that there have been two cases, in the first of which it was suspected that—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The first was the case to which I referred earlier, where there was no restraint, though earlier reports said that there was. The second case was of an unrestrained adult in the back of a car who was thrown forward, leading to the death or injury of a child in the front of the car.

Mr. Lloyd: That has to be compared with the fact that during the same two-year period over 100 children lost their lives precisely because they were not restrained.
I appeal to the hon. Member for Keighley to withdraw this amendment and allow this matter to be properly debated by the public and in Parliament when the regulations are in draft form. We shall then know what we ought to do to ensure that there is a safe means of restraint for children up to three years of age.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: My inclination is to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), but I am a little confused about how the mother holding a baby in the back of a car is affected by these proposals. Legislation often goes through the House without hon. Members envisaging what happens in real life.
Imagine me, driving my car and seeing a friend with her baby. I stop, offer her a lift and she gets into the back of my car with her young baby, which she is holding in her arms. Naturally, she would fold up the carry-cot and put it in beside her. My car is fitted with seat belts, so what does my friend do? Does she wear the belt and strap it round herself and the child? Is she required under the law to sit the child next to her and strap it in?
I am confused and should like my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) to make the matter clear. I could put my friend in the position, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has pointed out, of committing an offence through a third party if I do not say, "If you get into my car, you must hold your baby in such a way that the seat belt stretches over you and the baby and holds you all back in the seat." The position is confusing. When we stop to give people lifts, we do not always think about exactly what is the law.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. Because we want to consult family organisations and perhaps parent-teacher associations, to ensure that clear advice is given and that the regulations which define the law are right, we are asking my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) to withdraw the amendment rather than push it to a vote.
May I say in response to some of my hon. Friend's points, which people outside are raising, that one should never put a baby on one's lap in a car, because if there is a sudden deceleration, such as in a crash, that baby


becomes one's cushion, and babies are very bad cushions. "Never put a baby inside the seat belt with you because the baby will suffer far more than you." I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it possible for me to offer that advice to the outside world. The details of the regulations will depend on discussions and consultation, and my hon. Friend is right to make that point.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, but what am I to do? Let us say that I am with a tiny baby. I get into the car with it and my instinct is to hold it in my arms. It is a small baby and it wriggles about a lot —it does not know that when it is put down on its own it is supposed to stay there, and it is likely to flop on to the floor. I may be distracted if the car brakes suddenly. Is my hon. Friend the Minister telling us that I have to put my very small baby on the seat beside me, possibly strap myself in and then find that the seat belt cannot stretch across my baby so the baby lies on the seat beside me? Am I supposed to sit in such a way that I keep both my hands on the baby on that seat? This is a practical problem.
I may have two small children. My instinct is to strap in the child who sits up and to hold the other. To say that I should not hold it practically goes against human nature. Of course I shall hold the baby. I shall not stop to think what the law is and what priciples I must obey. These are the kind of practical difficulties faced in real life. It is important that we envisage these circumstances.

Ms. Richardson: The scenario that the hon. Lady describes is very telling. The Minister said that one should never hold a baby on one's lap. The hon. Lady has asked what one does with the baby and with one's self. Suppose the baby is sick, needs a cuddle or is frightened. The instinct of the woman in the back is to take the baby on her lap. Is the Minister saying that the driver should stop the car and say, "I cannot carry you"? I understand the Minister's point about the danger of the child becoming a cushion for the adult, but in some cases mothers will take a child on to their lap without thinking about it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House may wish to consider one or two more amendments and to give the Bill its Third Reading if possible. In the hope of being helpful, may I explain. Parents ought to have a better chance of seeing the PACTS video or the "That's Life" material, which shows what happens when one carries a baby on one's lap. I am not saying that parents should never carry their baby on their laps, but no parent would do so regularly having seen videos of what happens, even in low-speed crashes.
It is also worth emphasising that the Bill is likely to cover the 80 per cent. of children who mainly travel in their family's car. There are other vehicles and other circumstances, but most children are exposed to risk most often in their own family's car, and if restraints are fitted they should be used. In those circumstances, any parents who have spent £20, £40 or £140 on a radio cassette and have failed to spend £20 or £40 on appropriate restraints for their children are betraying their children.

Mrs. Gorman: The Minister has still not dealt with my point, which is about what happens in real life. Will a mother carrying two children in the circumstances that I described be made technically guilty of an offence? Will the driver who gave the lift be taken to court or will it be the

mother, who did not make use of the seat belt in the back seat for her child. Who the dickens will it be? Do we really want parents to be brought to court and fined in those circumstances? We are on the road to Cleveland; we are encouraging people to intervene in family matters who should not be involved at all.

Mr. Day: My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) overlooks the point that that moral dilemma already exists. My Bill does not create the difficulties. If the restraints are there, the problem already arises. My Bill does not affect it in any way and I do not understand why she thinks that it does.
Secondly, the Minister has made it clear that the very point that she raises—I agree that it is a point of considerable concern—will be considered in introducing the regulations. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is.

Mrs. Gorman: I have made it clear that the exemption of children under three is a move in the right direction, because it allows a mother faced with that difficulty legally to hold her child. That is her natural instinct. I have taken on board the Minister's point that that is dangerous, but it happens in real life and I do not want it to be made into an offence under the Bill if it ever reaches the statute book.

Mr. Waller: I do not want to be deliberately obstructive. We have had a good discussion about the problem, and I accept that three years is not necessarily the right age. I am not entirely satisfied with the responses I have received but in the interests of making progress and to provide an opportunity to discuss matters that are still important, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Waller: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 27 at end insert—
'(3A) Regulations under this section shall include an exemption for any child holding a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner to the effect that it is inadvisable on medical grounds for him to wear a seat belt.
(3B) If the driver of a motor vehicle is informed by a constable that he may be prosecuted for an offence under subsection (2) above, he shall not, in proceedings for that offence, be entitled to rely on an exception afforded to a child by a certificate referred to in subsection (3A) above unless—

(a) it is produced to the constable at the time he is so informed; or
(b) within seven days after the date on which he is so informed, it is produced at such police station as he may have specified to the constable; or
(c) it is produced there as soon as is reasonably practicable; or
(d) it is not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings are commenced;

and for the purposes of this subsection the laying of the information or, in Scotland, the service of the complaint on the accused shall be treated as the commencement of the proceedings.'.
The Bill as originally presented to the House was seriously defective in that it made no provision for exemption certificates for children who, for medical reasons—physical or psychological—would have difficulty in wearing a seat belt.
The earlier provision preventing children from being carried unbelted in the front of a car, needed another provision about exemption certificates, because it was still possible for children to be carried in the rear of a car. If we passed the Bill without provision for exemption certificates, some children could not be carried in a car at all. Therefore, my amendment provides for exemptions


from the wearing of seat belts for children if they hold a valid certificate that has been signed by a medical practitioner.
There has been discussion about the cost of such certificates. Previous legislation provided that in certain circumstances a Minister may stipulate the cost of such a certificate. I suspect that the feeling now is that such a provision is not necessary. However, I am a little concerned about the sorts of figures that are mentioned. I heard yesterday of a medical practitioner charging £18 for writing a certificate to the effect that an adult had a medical difficulty which meant that that person should not be required to wear a seat belt. I can envisage that in certain circumstances, perhaps for a mother on a low income with several children, the cost could cause great difficulties if there were no provision for stipulating the maximum fee. Sometimes medical practitioners ask what may appear to be quite large sums for writing a simple certificate.
It is important that medical practitioners are given some indication of the circumstances in which children should he granted a certificate. Is the fact that a child throws a tantrum every time he is put into the back of a car and strapped in, perhaps thus causing more danger to the occupants of the car, sufficient reason for a medical practitioner to write a certificate? It is important that the circumstances are set out. It might be a good idea if a statement incorporating such provisions were placed before the House. However, one way or another, it is important that the circumstances should be fully set out.
More consideration should be given to the kind of psychological problems which might lead children to be entitled to an exemption certificate. I am persuaded that there are relatively few physical problems that would require an adult or a child to be granted an exemption. Experience since the wearing of front seat belts was made compulsory suggests that there are relatively few circumstances in which a physical deformity or physical problem makes an exemption certificate necessary or desirable. However, there are psychological problems and such problems probably arise more in relation to the rears of cars than to the fronts, because some cars have constricted rear areas. Some children who are belted in might feel uncomfortable. From my discussions with parents, I know that that is the case and that parents are concerned about it. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will give the matter his careful consideration.
I am glad that the amendment that I tabled originally has been corrected and that the new amendment takes into account the amendment made in section 1(2) of the Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Act 1985, which amended section 33A of Road Traffic Act 1972 by changing from five to seven the number of days allowed for the presentation of a certificate at a police station. That seems a reasonable alteration. It also added new paragraphs (c) and (d) to subsection (3B), effectively saying to drivers that a certificate need not be produced if it is impracticable to do so.
There may be greater difficulties about the presentation of a child's certificate. Drivers would probably carry their certificate with the other driving documents. I am glad that the extra provision is incorporated in the Bill and that the amendment appears to be acceptable. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Day: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is to be congratulated on the conduct of his arguments throughout this and earlier stages of the Bill, and especially on this matter. The Bill is currently modelled on section 33B of the Road Traffic Act 1972 which does not provide for the arrangements that he has described. I am certainly willing to accept the amendment and I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will do likewise. In view of the time, I hope that hon. Members will then allow us to move on.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I welcome the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has picked up the distinction between the need for exemption certificates for rear seat travel and the absence of such a requirement for front seat travel. The promoter has rightly congratulated him on spotting that. I might briefly point out to those reporting our proceedings that to describe the Bill as having a rough passage would be an exaggeration as some of the amendments have been both sensible and acceptable. I trust that there will be an opportunity briefly to recognise that the efforts of all concerned have led to improvements in the Bill and I hope that it will make further progress today.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(2A) In section 199 of the 1972 Act (exercise of regulation-making powers and Parliamentary control)—

(a) In subsection (3) after "33A" there shall be inserted ", 33C"; and
(b) In subsection (4) for the words "or 33A" there shall be substituted the words ", 33A or 33C".'.—[Mr. Day.]

Mrs. Gorman: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 6, column 3, leave out '2' and insert '1'.
The Bill provides for penalties to be inflicted on parents or other drivers who fail to ensure the use of restraints in the rear seats. The penalty is at level 2 of the standard scale, which is a fine of £100. In my view it is bad enough for parents to have to go through the trauma of being taken to court for what I regard as a very trivial matter, but it is even worse to fine them £100.
In real life, children may be naughty. They may undo their belts. Other people's chidren may be difficult to control. There may be a number of children in the car. We have been through all the factors which make a nonsense of the Bill, but as the purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) is to get the Bill into law we must consider the level of fine.
I do not wish to delay the proceedings today, so I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that he agrees that the level of penalties is inappropriate for an offence under this measure. No normal person would agree that parents should be punished to such an extent for such an offence. It is reasonable to caution them, to issue a warning and to explain the necessity for doing as the law requires, but the fine envisaged is entirely inappropriate. In my view, even £50 would be pretty hefty and I should prefer there to be no financial penalty. I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that he will reconsider the matter and definitely drop the idea of level 2 penalties.

Mr. Day: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Has the hon. Lady finished? If so, I shall put the Question.

Mrs. Gorman: No, I am just giving way.

Mr. Day: I am willing to accept the amendment and gain some progress for the Bill. It is not a draconian measure; it is meant to encourage people. I am not seeking to make people penniless. So I accept the amendment and any assurance that the Minister gives.

Mrs. Gorman: After that assurance, I shall withdraw the amendment—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I intervene?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot do it that way. I must put the Question. The Question is—

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was allowing me to intervene in her speech.

Mrs. Gorman: indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I do not want the House to be confused. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was moving the amendment and I am not clear whether she has completed her speech.

Mrs. Gorman: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon.

Mrs. Gorman: I give way to the Minister.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I suggest that it would be helpful if she did not withdraw her amendment. Then I could make a brief speech and the House could decide what to do.

Mrs. Gorman: I accept my hon. Friend's advice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is promoting the Bill, has said that he is willing to accept the amendment. The Government are not keen on it but are willing to accept it in the House, and, if we feel strongly about it, come back in another place. I emphasise that I am not trying to say that we shall hijack the amendment because there will not be so much pressure on time. The Government would want to consider the issue again.
The aim of the supporters of the Bill is not to throw major financial penalties at parents. It is for more parents to use the restraints that they have. That is what the law will be. Outside the law, the aim is for more parents to fit and use restraints. Any parent who decided not to put his child in a restraint, with the prospect of a £15 fine with a maximum of £100 on level 2 or £10 with a maximum of £50 on level 1 would be playing cash roulette with his child's life. I hope that even if the House accepts the level 1 penalty today, the message will go out that the reason for restraining one's child is not to save money, but to save the child.

Mr. Waller: I concede that my hon. Friend might be in a slight difficulty in that it seems that, if we have a level 1 penalty for this offence and a level 2 penalty for not wearing a seat belt in the front of the car, we are giving less

priority to the former. However, we should also take into account the fact that we are trying to encourage parents to do the right thing. There are difficulties with the enforcement of this legislation, which we do not face with legislation that is already on the statute book. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend carefully to consider keeping the amendment in the Bill.

Mr. Bottomley: I suggest that the House incorporates the amendment in the Bill now. We shall consider it seriously. We should not anticipate any future consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Day: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has had a wide and detailed airing through all its stages. I hope that hon. Members will now allow it to proceed to the other place. If anyone has any further comments, I hope that they will be brief.
We have had an interesting and full debate today. I have already thanked my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for his contributions to the debate. I also thank the Minister for his help so far. I hope that we can now proceed to give the Bill its Third Reading.
I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of people believe that the Bill is good and will save lives. It is not in any way intended to be draconian or to intimidate; it is meant to be an encouragement. My acceptance of amendment No. 7 on Report is a sign of my stand on that. People accept the logic behind the Bill, so it will be self-enforcing. The Minister has assured us that there will be widespread consultation and I know that he will return with regulations. I am pleased that we could agree that they would come under the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure and I thank the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for raising that issue.
If we pass this legislation many people will be pleased in this place and outside. I hope that the House will feel able to support it on its, I hope brief, Third Reading.

Mr. Forth: I wish to make it clear that I do not support the legislation but that I do not intend to foil it by procedural means. If we vote on Third Reading, I shall be happy because it will enable me to express my view correctly. I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily or to frustrate the Bill by any false means, but I wish to make a brief speech about my responses to it. Hon. Members may be puzzled that, despite the great support for it of which we are asssured, some hon. Members may be sufficiently eccentric to oppose it.
I came to the House believing, as I still do, that we legislate excessively in too many areas of human behaviour. My main objective is to restrain this propensity to legislate. I am not persuaded that if something is deemed to be good for many people we must necessarily devise a way to force behaviour in that direction. For that reason I am unhappy about a wide range of legislation from this House and even from my Government. Anyone who starts from that position takes much persuading that it is right to intervene, even in a case such as this.
I am not even persuaded when I am told that 90 per cent. of people, when asked, think that this legislation is a


good idea. If we ask people on the street whether they think that hanging or capital punishment is a good idea, 80 per cent. will say "Yes". I doubt whether all hon. Members who pray that sort of evidence in aid would want to follow their logic through and legislate every time something is supported by an opinion poll. A moment's thought will make hon. Members realise that that is not a legitimate basis on which to judge legislation or to intervene.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but not only do the vast majority of people outside want the legislation, so do the vast majority of hon. Members. That is the difference.

Mr. Forth: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will recall that earlier today, when we had a closure motion, only 107 hon. Members voted in favour and four against. In other words, only 111 Members of Parliament out of 650 were sufficiently persuaded of the virtue of the legislation to be present. That is not an overwhelming display of support.

Mr. Sheerman: Today is Friday.

Mr. Forth: Friday is a parliamentary sitting day like any other. It has no lesser status than any other day. It is unacceptable for Members of Parliament to say to constituents, "I am sorry that you were not represented on Friday, but I had something else to do." This Bill, known to be a private Member's Bill, is as entitled as any other Bill to the vocal and physical support of Members of Parliament if they are to claim that it has widespread support. Let us lay that to rest and deal with the Bill strictly on its merits.
I think that my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) have conceded that it has been shown that parts of the legislation raise question marks and doubts. Equally, they have been fair in accepting amendments, not least so that we can make progress and pass the legislation in one form or another. I repeat, I do not intend to frustrate it. They must concede that much work needs to be done and that many issues must be considered.
My hon. Friend the Minister has assured us that he will consult interested parties widely to establish whether the legislation can be made to work in an acceptable and reasonable manner. Knowing the Minister as I do, I am sure that he will do exactly that and embark positively on procedures to bring about what he said would be the benefits of this law in a reasonable and workable way and to achieve a balance between what is practical and what is not.
If the opportunity for a vote arises, I will vote against the Bill because I am not persuaded that it is right for the House to devise ever-increasing measures to dictate human behaviour. I believe—regrettably, fewer hon. Members seem to believe this—in the concept of parental responsibility. My Government talk constantly about Victorian values—whatever they were—the family and parental responsibilities. Opposition Members talk about the family and the role of parents. Why, if we respect the role of parents and the family relationship so much, do we still see fit to legislate to tell people what their responsibilities are and fine them if they do not exercise them? That is an odd way to square the concepts of the family and responsibility on the one hand with the role of the law on the other.
I retain, even after a few years in the House—it is more difficult after a few years in the European Parliament—the naive belief that people know best and should be left to make their own judgments. I retain even more strongly the belief that no hon. Member has a superiority or monopoly of knowledge. I am suspicious of the repeated attempts in the House to devise ways of telling everybody how to live their lives. For those reasons, I will oppose the Bill.

Mr. Waller: My view reflects that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth).
I hope that the House will have an opportunity to vote on Third Reading and give its view on it. I do not wish to frustrate the House's will that there should be a vote. I fully recognise that hon. Members would like a decision to be made.
There are aspects of the Bill about which I remain profoundly unhappy. This is not a sector where criminal sanctions should be used to persuade people of their responsibilities. The question of what is a reasonable excuse is a tricky one and we have tended to skirt round it. It is one to which we shall have to pay careful attention in the future.
I am anxious that the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which I took to be a commitment, has been cast to one side. He said that he could not conceive of any Government moving to the position of introducing compulsory wearing of seat belts where there is not compulsory fitting.
I hope that when he is considering the regulations the Minister will take account of his predecessor's important words and look at the context in which those unequivocal words were made. That shows the danger of saying one thing and leading the House to approve regulations that might be different to those that were imagined when the primary legislation was introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) will deserve the congratulations of the House if his Bill receives its Third Reading today. I will do everything that I can to ensure that it works and saves lives.

Mrs. Gorman: I oppose the Bill in principle and practice. I oppose it in principle because I believe that far too much legislation from the House interferes with personal responsibility. As my hon. Friends have already said, there is a strong case for leaving parents to make decisions for themselves on how to raise, transport and generally take care of their children.
Much evidence is building up to show that if, through legislation, we take away the individual's responsibility to make decisions, there is a tendency for people to behave more irresponsibly. Evidence exists, especially with regard to accidents, to support that. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) referred earlier to such evidence and to the research work carried out by Dr. John Adams from London university.
If we introduce such legislation, we tell people that there is a law and the people do not need to worry any more because the Government have taken on the responsibility. That does not apply only to this Bill. I have referred to Cleveland where parents were brought to court for apparent breaches of their duties. We gave powers to


the legislature and to bureaucrats to intervene in family matters. That has led to an awful disaster for those parents in Cleveland.
When I mentioned Cleveland the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) blanched and appeared to want to intervene. We gave powers to authorities and that led to a situation in which innocent parents have been dragged into court and subjected to awful experiences with regard to their family matters. The House is largely responsible for that for our over-zealousness in trying to protect people from their own folly.

Ms. Short: I understand the hon. Lady's point. However, she must also understand that we have a problem, that we did not all understand until fairly recently, of serious sexual abuse of children, and we must try to intervene to protect children while having respect for the integrity of the family. Surely the hon. Lady accepts that. Does she accept that there should be intervention in those dreadful cases?

Mrs. Gorman: I entirely accept the hon. Lady's intervention. No one, except those engaged in such horrible practices, would approve of the kind of abuse that occurred in the Cleveland cases. However, there is evidence to suggest that when we give powers to authorities to intervene, those powers—with the best will in the world—cause intervention in family life and create great distress. I do not know whether granting those powers reduces the amount of child abuse. I wish that it did. That might be a reason for granting those powers. However, there is no evidence to support that wish.
More cases may be coming to light and I would support any measures through the voluntary associations to take a greater interest—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is being led astray. She must confine herself to the Bill.

Mrs. Gorman: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I will return to the specific issues in the Bill and explain why I find it objectionable. I have dealt with personal responsibility, but there is also a question of civil liberties.

Mrs. Wise: Has the hon. Lady considered the necessity and desirability of intervening in the case of babies, where parents have no excuse for not restraining them? Great problems could also arise with older children who might be defiant and deliberately cause trouble, and even create danger in the car by their unruly behaviour. Has the hon. Lady considered the differences in children of different ages?

Mrs. Gorman: I dealt with that point at some length when I made my earlier intervention. I am entirely in favour of persuading people to observe better standards of conduct. The Church, as well as the House, is involved in such activities, but there is a difference between persuading people to behave more sensibly in respect of their children and introducing an element of compulsion—of bringing innocent parents into court to be fined. It worries me that the Minister appears to be in favour of heavy rather than light fines for parents who are nursing babies.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend the Minister is shaking his head, so perhaps I am wrong.
After we have passed legislation such as this, the House tends to think, "That's that. That law is on the statute book and everybody will behave better now." However, there have been numerous studies—many of them sponsored by the Department of Transport—indicating that there is a perverse effect arising out of road safety legislation. That is shown to be particularly so in studies which have examined the relationship between accidents and pedestrians and cyclists. The fact that cars are much safer than they were and that there are many more zebra crossings are among the factors taken into consideration.
Those studies suggest that the number of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists is not falling as quickly as it should, because although the car driver may feel safer, he probably takes more risks. As a result, more pedestrians and cyclists are injured.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend the Minister again shakes his head, but I have taken the trouble to read those reports. I referred earlier to one of them in particular, by Durbin and Harvey, which was sponsored by the Department of Transport. It alleges—and my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the increase in the number of accidents involving pedestrians is 13 per cent. higher than the expected figure. It is 40 per cent. higher in the case of cyclists. Against that, the number of accidents involving drivers of heavy goods vehicles and of buses—we have heard a lot today about Ministers falling under buses—has declined.
There is a perfectly logical reason for that trend, if one takes human nature into account. The driver or passenger wearing a safety belt—whether in the front or back of the car—tends to be over-confident about his safety and is less attentive to what is happening on the road, particularly if he has a car full of people who are all wearing safety belts.
The car may be travelling along the motorway and all those inside it may be playing an "I spy" game. Indeed, there are activity books for children on car journeys which include "I spy" games. The driver's attention may be distracted as he looks out of the window to see something beginning with the letter S. Without realising it, he is endangering others, whether they are the passengers of the car in front or pedestrians. The vehicle ahead may get bashed from behind because of a driver's lack of attention.
There is a strong case to be made against seat belts in general, not just back seat belts, but people do not want to go back and re-examine legislation in that way. In the United States, there has been a good deal of examination of the effect of seat belts on accident levels. Crash helmets have also been investigated, but as we are not dealing with crash helmets today, I shall not say much about them.
When the perception of danger is lowered, other people may suffer as a result. That is the dilemma of all who seek to promote the betterment of behaviour through some form of legislation. There is strong evidence to suggest that there should be fewer regulations from the House so that individuals adopt a more responsible stance.
In his book "Risk and Freedom", John Adams says that, with a view to legislation reaching the House at some stage in the future, he has undertaken a study of parents who frequently transport their children in the back of the car. They said that they felt that they would drive much


more carefully—as if they were carrying eggs—if the children were not constrained by seat belts. We are likely to put on the statute book legislation that will withdraw that element of responsibility. Although my hon. Friend the Minister says that he wishes to save 60 lives, he has not given enough consideration—and we are in danger of doing the same—to how many children outside the car, on the street, may have accidents because of the Bill. For that reason, I shall not support the Bill.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I shall comment briefly on the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and those of her fellow Right-wing libertarians. While the issue of risk compensation was dealt with adequately on Second Reading—the hon. Lady may wish to look at the record—if she is seriously concerned about risks to non-motor car users she should press the Government, who I hope would be prepared to accept the suggestion, to increase measures that improve pedestrian safety and lessen the risk of accidents of all kinds, rather than blocking a measure that will of itself save lives.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on piloting the Bill through. I also say, in fairness, that while the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on occasion entered into a form of debate with me—although not always to the edification of either of us—he has, in the final analysis, played a reasonably responsible role. Certainly, his amendment has assisted the Bill. I welcome the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Like the official Opposition, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on what he has achieved. I also acknowledge the help of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and its advisers.
More than 600 children are killed and over 7,000 injured each year while travelling unrestrained in the backs of cars. There is increasing awareness of the value of wearing seat belts in the rear of cars as well as in the front. Since the Bill was first debated in the House at the beginning of February, sales of seat belts and child restraints have soared. One leading manufacturer reports sales up by over 40 per cent. That demonstrates the parental support for what the Bill aims to do.
The "That's Life" campaign in 1986 led the way by highlighting just how vulnerable our children are when travelling unrestrained. It is irresponsible of us as drivers to expose them to an unnecessary level of risk. More and more people are having rear restraints fitted to older cars, and all new cars must now have them fitted, anyway. The Bill proposes that where such restraints exist they should, where practicable, be used by child passengers.
There are many issues still to be resolved in deciding how the law should apply in practice. The enabling regulations, which will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, will need to accommodate a wide range of circumstances—the large family, the school run and so on. The Bill requires only that restraints that are fitted should be used and not that all children in the rear of cars be restrained. A large group would not be prohibited from travelling together.
When drafting the regulations and considering the timing of their introduction, we shall, as the law requires,

consult widely. In particular we shall need to discuss with the police, who wholeheartedly support the Bill in principle, with family organisations and other interests, including taxi interests, the enforcement implications. We shall proceed step by step.
The powers that the Bill seeks to introduce are the same as those we already have in respect of adults travelling in the rear of cars. We have not used those powers and we have no plans to do so. I believe that timing is crucial if we are to achieve a high level of compliance. One of the reasons why Britain has the highest front seat belt wearing rate in the world is that the law was in tune with the climate of opinion that existed at that time. For the time being, we want to continue to do everything possible to encourage the voluntary use of rear restraints by adults.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) raised the issue of the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruschcliffe (Mr. Clarke). What we are proposing is less than that envisaged by my right hon. and learned Friend. If we began to say that all cars must have rear seat belts fitted, we would be going as far as my right hon. and learned Friend was suggesting. We are going less far. We could be criticised for that, but not in the way offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley.
There is growing body of public opinion that we should move towards the obligatory use of rear restraints for children. The Bill reflects that shift. No responsible parent would want to wait for the law before fitting and using child restraints.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 6.

Division No. 305]
[2.22 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Allen, Graham
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Alton, David
Fyfe, Maria


Amess, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gordon, Mildred


Atkinson, David
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Barron, Kevin
Hayes, Jerry


Beckett, Margaret
Haynes, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Henderson, Doug


Bendall, Vivian
Hood, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bottomley, Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bowis, John
Kennedy, Charles


Bradley, Keith
Knapman, Roger


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Knowles, Michael


Caborn, Richard
Knox, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lamond, James


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Latham, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Lightbown, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Couchman, James
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Day, Stephen
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Devlin, Tim
Meale, Alan


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dover, Den
Moate, Roger


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Durant, Tony
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Pendry, Tom


Fearn, Ronald
Pike, Peter L.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rhodes James, Robert






Richardson, Jo
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Ruddock, Joan
Wall, Pat


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wailey, Joan


Shersby, Michael
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Short, Clare
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wray, Jimmy


Stern, Michael



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thorne, Neil
Mr. Barry Sheerman and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. James Cran.


NOES


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Kilfedder, James



Miller, Hal
Tellers for the Noes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. Eric Forth and


Waller, Gary
Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY INFORMATION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; reported, with amendments; read the Third time, and passed.

Abortion (Amendment) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration.

Hon. Members: Object

Debate to be resumed on Monday 16 May.

Mr. David Alton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the reply by the Leader of the House during yesterday's business questions, and given that the Abortion Act 1967 was enacted at the seventh attempt only when the Government of the day gave time to enable it to make progress, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, through you, Sir, can tell the House whether he has been able to consider further the early-day motion which has been signed by 113 hon. Members and the representations which he has received from thousands of people that time should be provided to decide this important matter, which is the concern of millions of people.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is unparliamentary and out of order for an hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of being a liar or a hypocrite, surely it is unparliamentary and out of order for an hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of being in support of the murdering of babies. That charge was made earlier today by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who accused those who had taken part in the debate on new clause 1 and the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Member is going back to something that apparently took place much earlier in the day. We cannot return to that point at the present time.

Mr. Madden: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Hansard report bears out the fact that the hon. Member for Rochdale accused hon. Members who had participated in the debate on new clause 1 of being in support of the murdering of babies, will you ask Mr. Speaker to request the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw what many of us who took part in that debate regard as a grossly offensive and unparliamentary remark? Will you ask Mr. Speaker to ask the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw that remark, which was made specifically against a group of hon. Members who had taken part in the debate? I have reason to believe that the occupant of the Chair at that time did not hear the remark. I ask you, Sir, to look at the Hansard record. If the allegation is reported there, will you ask Mr. Speaker on Monday to ask the hon. Member for Rochdale to withdraw the remark? The hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber and I have reason to believe that he is prepared to withdraw it if requested.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall all be able to check the Hansard report. I shall of course draw the hon. Member's comments to the attention of Mr. Speaker.

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) raised his point of order, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) addressed a question through you to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who made no immediate response. That may well have been because the hon. Member for Bradford,


West wished, quite properly, to raise a point of order. We have had no answer from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Last Friday, and again in a sense today—I make no comment on today's debate—we have seen a determined attempt by a minority to frustrate the progress of a Bill which had a substantial majority on Second Reading, passed through the Committee stage and completed its Report stage, save for the votes at the end. May I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Sir, whether he will comment on the way in which private Members' rights are being abused and the will of the majority is being made a mockery? Will he do something about it?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to reconfirm that it is not the Government's practice to grant time for any individual private Member's Bill, however important the issues with which it deals. As I said yesterday, we believe that it would be a very grave step to intervene in the process of private Members' Bills. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), the promoter of the Bill, have asked me to consider other ways in which hon. Members could consider the matter. I understand their point and will of course bear it in mind. As the Leader of the House, I am always happy to see them, or any other hon. Member, to discuss the matter.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been in the Chair for much of today. To prevent repetition in answering accusations of parliamentary mugging, foul play and cheating, will you confirm that the two Bills debated today have been debated absolutely properly and in full conformity with the Standing Orders and that no hon. Member has been called out of order? As Mr. Speaker has said, any accusation by the media of parliamentary mugging would be exaggerated and very much out of place.

Ms. Clare Short: Further to the point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. It is a simple answer to a simple question: the hon. Gentleman is correct.

Ms. Short: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must be fair to hon. Members who have other Bills on the Order Paper. I intend to take them now.

Private Members' Bills

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

CERVICAL CANCER (TESTING AND TREATMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

POLYURETHANE FOAM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

SCHOOL BUS PASSES (REVISION OF REGULATIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

UNDERGROUND FIRES (RESEARCH AND CONTROL) AND LAND PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, given that the last Bill refers specifically to a unit being set up by the Department of the Environment, that objections should come from Conservative Members other than those in the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed. However, we have been through this on many occasions at 2.30 on private Members' Fridays and what has occurred has been perfectly in order.

RIGHT TO LIVE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Frank Haynes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill to name a day?

Mr. Haynes: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Friday 15 July.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think it is fair. This is an important Bill about living. Government Members seem to want people to die—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. There is the additional point that we could not have taken this Bill any further because it has not been printed.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second Time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House. —[Mr. Carrington.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read the Third time on Friday 20 May.

INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

UNFAIR REPORTING AND RIGHT OF REPLY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

BLACKLISTS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

SCOTTISH CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House —[Mr. Darling.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be read the Third time on Friday 20 May.

HORSES, PONIES AND DONKEYS (No. 2) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House—[Mr. Amess.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With regard to the one Bill that has passed all its stages today, and the two Bills that passed all their stages except Third Reading, without any word of explanation or even commendation, and certainly without debate in the House, would it not be advisable if procedures were changed at least to enable the promoters of Bills to explain what we are doing in the space of five minutes to change the laws of this country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Procedure Committee is likely to be set up fairly soon. This is not a matter for the Chair, but he may wish to refer it to the Committee when it is set up.

Ms. Jo Richardson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) named Monday 16 May for further proceedings on his Bill. Can you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Monday is not a day for private Members' legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will appear on the remaining Orders.

Mr. David Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to make it absolutely clear to the hon. Lady and to others that we shall be back with the Bill every single day.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has talked outside the House of parliamentary mugging, political trickery and all the rest of it. If any attempt was made to take over another day that was designated for private Members' motions, not private Members' Bills, I think that you would be guilty of that crime, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his welcome advice, but I shall not be taking it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be wise now if the whole House reflected on the matter and if we proceeded to the Adjournment.

Quest for a Test for Cancer

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lightbown]

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Last year, 2,500 women died of cervical cancer. All of us in the Conservative party and, I suspect, the vast majority of Opposition Members, greatly respect the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health to the eradication of cervical cancer, and fully accept everything that he, his Department and our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security are trying to do to introduce a recall system as fast and as effectively as possible.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that, sad to say, it does not look as if we shall get a full recall service by the end of the year, but we are working towards it. I am sure that he will also accept that one of the problems with the present test is that it is not as accurate as we should like. In fact, it could be up to 20 or 30 per cent. inaccurate. Another difficulty that I am sure my right hon. Friend would accept involves speed. The cytologists can deal with only 25 to 30 slides a day and sometimes it takes up to a month for a women who is very worried about whether she has cancer to hear the result.
The debate about an organisation called Quest for a Test for Cancer, which is battling against the problems that are besetting the country. The trouble is that it is also battling against some civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Security. I have no criticism of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State or of the respective private offices. From my experience on the Select Committee on Social Services, and through day-to-day correspondence, I have nothing but respect for the professionalism of those in the private offices and the conscientious why in which they respond to our letters.
I should like to tell the House a little about the test that has been discovered. Many in the medical profession would call it a breakthrough. The test, which was pioneered by two well-known and distinguished research doctors at the academic department of obstetrics and gynaecology atthe Middlesex hospital, detects pre-cancer in normal-looking cells with a staining technique which causes the nucleus, or control centre, of pre-cancerous cells to appear darker than those of healthy cells. The difference in staining is measured by an instrument called an integrating microdensitometer which shines a beam of light through the nuclei, scanning them and measuring how much light passes through. This value indicates whether the cells are pre-cancerous and how potentially malignant they are. A computer is used to store and analyse the results.
The test has been described as the major breakthrough of the decade in cancer detection. It is fast, reliable and cost effective, and it is the only routine test which detects potential malignancy in normal-looking cells. It replaces a decision based on human observation with measurements of a highly accurate instrument. The present cervical screening involves clinicians examining smears from normal-looking cells. The automatic staining machine can take 180 slides at one cycle, each taking one and a half minutes. That compares with the conventional cervical screening when a single cytologist can process 25 to 30 a

day. Furthermore, of the 187 women who have been screened at a field trial, which has been written up in The Lancet and other medical journals, there has been a success and accuracy rate of more than 95 per cent. It goes without saying that the Department was and still is interested in the matter. It made overtures to Dr. Sincock and Mr. Steele who have been pioneering these experiments. I should tell the House of the chronology of events affecting the two doctors.
The DHSS invited Dr. Sincock to apply for funds, and the first discussions were held as long ago as 20 May 1987. It was made clear to the Department that the test had to be put through a final clinical trial before it could be adopted for routine cervical screening. On 17 June 1987 representatives visited the laboratory at the Middlesex hospital to see the test in action. They were highly enthusiastic and encouraged Dr. Sincock to make an application for funds as soon as possible. They promised to process such an application as soon as possible in view of the importance of the work. On 6 July 1987 the DHSS made a further visit to the Middlesex hospital laboratory and brought representatives from a commercial company, the name of which it is not appropriate to mention at this stage. One of them, the research and development manager, explained that his company had ready for production a machine that would quickly and reliably read cervical smear preparations.
In July 1987 a formal application was made to the DHSS procurement directorate. In order to expedite its processing, the DHSS had checked and passed a draft version submitted previously. The decision was promised for 30 November 1987 and I have letters from Ministers confirming that. On 3 August 1987 Dr. Sincock was visited by Dr. Rutovitz of the Medical Research Council unit in Edinburgh. His group had been actively involved in the development of the commercial machine. He confirmed that the machine was nowhere near ready for production and that there were some technical problems. On 9 November 1987 the DHSS visited the Middlesex. Dr. Sincock was informed that the application would have to be amended and that the work was now considered low priority.
Two further amended applications were submitted to the DHSS, one at the end of November and the other at the end of December. On 14 Decemer 1987, the procurement directorate advised that the application was to be considered by a scientific committee that was scheduled to meet on 25 February 1988. On 28 January Dr. Sincock visited Dr. Rutovitz at the Medical Research Council unit in Edinburgh to give a number of lectures about the test and to inspect the commercial machine. He was alarmed by the number of technical problems with the machine and clearly thought at that stage that it was unable to fulfil the promise of automating the reading of cervical smears, despite many years of development.
On 21 April 1988, Quest for a Test for Cancer received an official rejection of its application from the DHSS. Quest for a Test for Cancer and those at the department of academic obstetrics and gynaecology at the Middlesex hospital—those who pioneered the test—have been horrified by that decision. The DHSS has been dragging its feet for a long time. Even today there has been no scientific explanation of why the test was rejected. I hesitate to say, but nevertheless I shall do so, that there was much unpleasantness between officials and Mr. Steele and Dr. Sincock.
On 18 April 1988, Dr. Sincock received a letter from Mr. Kennedy of the supplies technology division about the test. It says:
I am writing to you following our telephone conversation of 15 April. First, I regret to have to confirm that the expert panel which met on 26 February did not recommend that your project be funded by the NHS Procurement Directorate. Second, I wish to apologise on behalf of DHSS for the excessive and inexcusable delay in letting you have a written statement of the decision of the meeting and for the fact that during our conversation it took me some time to get to the point that the expert panel had effectively turned down your proposal.
At this stage, I should make it clear that all the people who worked to get the project off the ground did everything they could to accede to the requests made by the DHSS and to change specifications. I have been told by those who were involved that they acceded to every request.
We are talking not about an idea but something that has been pioneered, developed, has had clinical trials on 187 women and has proved to have a 95 per cent. success rate. All the funds about which the DHSS initiated the discussions have gone. The chances of getting the test off the ground without £105,000 so that 2,000 or 3,000 women can be tested are remote, unless money is forthcoming from the Department.
A note was sent to Mr. Kennedy by Mr. Steele of the Middlesex hospital in response to the letter of 18 April. He said:
I do appreciate your apology but find it quite astounding that we were not informed before now particularly in view of the fact that an application for funds was invited by the department and that we have had to revise our proposal several times since that invitation was issued after we visited the department.
As you will know from the papers, we sought a grant in order to validate on a large scale the reliability of this method of screening for cervical neoplasia. Almost daily in clinical practice I meet problems arising from the limitations of cervical cytology and a more reliable method of screening would both save lives and be more cost effective than the present method. I note that you wish to discuss with us the question of commercial exploitation of the assay with the company. As I think Dr. Sincock told you we were not impressed when we met this company last year. They have no particular experience of the type of work which Dr. Sincock is doing and while I am aware that they have been working on the automation of cervical cytology for some years I do not think that this work links in particularly closely with our own nor am I satisfied that they would be the most appropriate people with whom to co-operate. In any case, it seems to us quite illogical to be talking about commercial exploitation before we have a complete appraisal of the method of screening for cervical neoplasia which we have researched. I must say that I find the attitude and response of the Department of Health in this matter very strange.
It is with sadness that I received this morning a letter from Dr. Sincock, who pioneered this work. He said:
Just a brief note to provide you with an update of information for your …debate on 13th May. Mr. D. Kennedy from the NHS Procurement Directorate has yesterday spoken on the phone with Mr. S. Steele, the Head of this department. He will not speak to me in case any information is passed to Quest for a Test for Cancer. Mr. Kennedy did not succeed in getting Mr. Steele to commit himself to further time wasting meetings and discussions. Indeed, it would be fair to say that at the end of the phone call Mr. Steele was of the impression that nothing was being done to resolve the present serious situation and further the Department seemed to be totally confused about our application frequently making contradictory statements.

I have today offered my resignation. I am forced to do this as a result of the grave damage that has been done to my project by the DHSS. Also, some of their recent comments reflect on my professional credibility as a senior research scientist.
Needless to say, Mr. Steele has not accepted that offer of resignation. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health is deeply concerned about this and, probably more than any other Member, is committed to the Health Service and to preventive medicine. I ask my right hon. Friend not simply to give an explanation for what has happened, because what is past is past. I want him to consider that since 15 January, the test has effectively been abandoned.
Millions of women may be suffering from cervical cancer and we know that thousands die every year. The test may provide hope for those women and it will also save the Health Service a great deal of money. I ask my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking that the Department will reconsider the request for very modest financing of £105,000.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) for raising this matter and I shall say a word about the overall background of screening for cancer. I want to make it clear, especially in relation to what my hon. Friend said about it being later this year before cervical cancer screening systems will be in operation throughout the country, that my colleagues and I in the Department, about whom my hon. Friend made some kind and generous remarks, are proud that, as a result of our efforts, we are the first and only country in the European Community with a comprehensive national cervical cancer screening service based on computerised call and recall.
The entire family practitioner system has now been computerised. That has been a massive exercise for which everyone involved deserves thanks. In addition to its application to cervical cancer screening, that new system offers many possibilities for the prevention of other types of disease.
Incidentally, we are also the first country in the world to launch a nationwide breast cancer screening service and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is aware of that, as the West Essex health authority covers the site of one of the first elements of that system. Already the family practitioner computers are being applied to inviting women for mammography and every region in England now has at least one breast cancer screening service with the whole country due to be covered by 1990.
Those two developments—the cervical cancer screening system and the developing breast cancer screening system—provide a record of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I can be rightly proud.
I move on to the specific issue my hon. Friend has brought before the House. What I have said is not to suggest in any way that we might not do even better if we could overcome some of the problems of cervical cancer screening. One of them is the quality of the smears that are taken. It is important that my hon. Friend should understand that quality problems are the biggest cause of false negatives. I shall say more about that later, if there is time.
Another problem, to which my hon. Friend's remarks have been principally directed, is the misinterpretation in


the laboratory of the smears which have been taken. We would he anxious to adopt any system that could be proved to make a significant reliable contribution, against the criteria we must use, to the improvement of laboratory testing. The requirements of a diagnostic test suitable for routine use in NHS laboratories are that it should be robust—that is, it should be capable of being performed in different types of laboratories and by operators with varied levels of skill; it should use readily-available reagents and instruments; it should be reproducible; and it should have a high sensitivity and specificity.
Similarly, any new method for identifying pre-cancer of the cervix must offer advantages over the existing technique. It should be more accurate, faster, require fewer trained technicians, and have an objective end-point. Ideally—or at least it would be an advantage-it would cost no more than the present test.
In considering the test developed by Dr. Sincock, the research director of Quest, we have been applying the criteria I have just outlined. His hydrolysed DNA—or HDA—test still uses a routinely collected smear, which is why I emphasised earlier that the principal cause of false negatives is inadequately collected smears. The difference is that with Dr. Sincock's test the smear is treated with acid to remove everything but the cell nuclei, which are then stained by a special technique. The intensity of that staining, which indicates whether there is a pre-cancerous condition, is measured objectively in a semi-automatic machine. There is the added potential for full automation of density measurement. Doctor Sincock claims that even normal-looking nuclei from an abnormal area of the cervix are positive in his tests. If that is so, it may be an earlier predictor of pre-cancerous changes than the current smear test.
At the end of 1987, as my hon. Friend has said, Dr. Sincock published preliminary results from 187 smears. His measurements showed good discrimination between normal smears and those with pre-cancer on that small sample of specimens. In the past few years, discussion of the problem of diagnosis of cervical cancer has stimulated a great deal of interest in the scientific community. By the end of last year, in addition to the application of Dr. Sincock, the Department had received 12 others—some for the automation of the current screening technique and some for new methods of diagnosis. On 26 February this year, an independent group of experts was called together, chaired by the Department's chief scientist, to review all the applications. That expert group thought that Dr. Sincock's test required greater precision than was likely to be sustainable in routine NHS laboratory use, and they found the technique very exacting. They thought that the method of measuring the staining intensity was still fairly slow, and that alternative instrumentation would be preferable.
The application as submitted was not supported for funding but it was recommended that a study should be undertaken in another laboratory to assess whether the method could be reproduced elsewhere. As my hon. Friend's closing remarks indicated, Department officials have been involved in discussions with Dr. Sincock and with a commercial company to explore the possibility of a joint funding venture aimed at securing an independent valuation of the test in another laboratory. If that proves successful, there would be a possibility that the test could be commercialised.
In answer to one of my hon. Friend's points, commercialisation of the test is needed so that it can be made available as a complete package of reagents and instruments ready for use by NHS screening laboratories. Only if that is done can the benefits of the new test be brought to the women who use the screening service.
I realise—and I have firmly registered what my hon. Friend has said—that the Department appears to have taken a long time, especially from the point of view of Dr. Sincock and his supporters, to consider a proposal whose advocates believe that it provides a solution to the problem of accurate smear analysis. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree, however, that it would be wrong to embrace such an idea without being fully satisfied both that it is an improvement and that it is suitable for use in the NHS. The Department has sought, with the help of its independent advisers, to help Dr. Sincock to formulate his proposals and to give them a fair hearing. It is still seeking to work with him and Mr. Steele to see whether a way can be found of taking forward the evaluation of the test.
When I heard that the debate was to take place. I asked for a detailed history of the contacts between the Department and Quest for a Test and Dr. Sincock. I can find only one occasion on which it can be said that things really went wrong. Officials had told Quest that a final decision would be received on the request for funds to evaluate the test by the end of March, but it was not notified formally until 18 April. That notification was in the end conveyed in the letter, part of which my hon. Friend read out. The notification, from Mr. Kennedy, contained a clear and ample apology. It is also fair to note that the delay was due in part to the efforts that my officials had been making to find an alternative way of having the test evaluated along the lines suggested by the expert panel.
It has been suggested that Dr. Sincock's application for support was rejected on scientific grounds, and that he was not told what those grounds were. I have already explained why the expert panel felt that it could not support his proposals. Perhaps my officials could have been more explicit; however, confidential commercial matters were involved, and they were at the time seeking to meet Dr. Sincock to explain the position face to face.
I also ackowledge that Dr. Sincock was originally told that his application would be considered at a meeting in November, as that was the intention at the time. However, as I have explained, 12 other applications were received, and it seems to me that it was more sensible in those circumstances to look at them all together. The panel of independent experts was set up, and that caused a delay in responding to Dr. Sincock's application. That was perhaps unfortunate, but as the total applications amounted to some £5 million and the available funds were limited, it was obviously important to select those likely to produce the best results. That could not be done on a piecemeal basis.
I should perhaps make it clear that our officials strongly dispute the suggestion that Dr. Sincock was told that his work was of low priority. He was, I understand, told that the external referees to whom his original application was referred had some reservations about his proposal, which had received only cautious support, and he was asked to amend it in the light of their comments. He has been assured—I re-emphasise this—that the whole subject of cervical cancer is of high priority within the Department,


and that any new methods that could improve the laboratory diagnosis are, and will continue to be, carefully and seriously considered.
My hon. Friend suggested that we might, even at this stage, finance Quest for a Test's work, despite the background which he has covered from his perspective, and which I have covered from the perspective available to me from the Department. I hope that I have explained that we have considered the application very carefully, as has the independent expert panel convened specially for the purpose, and given the reasons why funding has not been provided. With regret, I do not see that what my hon. Friend has said provides a basis for changing that decision. I do not wish to raise false hopes, although in view of my hon. Friend's final remarks I am willing to say that I will have a further look at the matter. That is said with no commitment, and without seeking to raise expectations, which might prove false, of finding any alternative way round the difficult position that he has described.
The House may be interested to know something about the projects that the chief scientist's expert group considerd as suitable for funding by the DHSS. One was

a monolayering machine. The Department had already helped to fund the development of a prototype of that machine, which is now ready for field trials. It prepares a single layer of cells from cervical smear material that can then be screened by an automatic image analyser. That machine is crucial to the development of the other project that has been regarded as suitable for DHSS support. That machine is called "Cytoscan", which is being developed for automatic pre-screening of cervical smears and is intended to scan the single layer slides.
I mention that, even at the expense of including some scientific jargon, to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and to Quest For a Test for Cancer that there is no question of the Department not being willing, when the advice suggests that it is the right course, to find support for particular proposals designed to improve cervical cancer screening. We are firmly committed to that. We are not, at present, pursuaded that we should act in the way in which my hon. Friend urged in the latter part of his remarks. However, I shall have a further look at the matter in the spirit in which I have sought to respond to my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Three o'clock.